1951-05-14

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
BEING THE 92nd SESSION FOR THE PERIOD 1867-1951

[Stage Direction]
[DOT] [DOT] .

. .	! a [DOT]	[DOT]
[Stage Direction]


< ' :-T-
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 14, 1951

Mr. Robert Cauchon (Beauharnois):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. No doubt the house would like to know that the Valley field Braves hockey team, from my constituency and home city, won the Alexander cup. I am sure my colleagues from the city of Toronto and surrounding district expected me to make this announcement.



CANADIAN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Defence Production) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 284, to amend the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act.


Mr. Knowles:: Expain.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This bill provides for a number of minor amendments to the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act, several of which are required as a result of the establishment of the Department of Defence Production, and several for purposes of clarification of clauses relating to general operations.
This amendment defines the minister as the Minister of Defence Production, and removes any legal doubt that may exist as to the corporation's authority to perform such services as may be authorized by any other statute, for example the Defence Production Acr, even though such authorities are not specifically set out in the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act. It redefines, for clarification, the revolving nature of the advances which may be made to the corporation from the consolidated revenue fund under the act.
In keeping with a reduction in the number of members of the board of directors from nine to six, all of whom are engaged in the work of the Department of Defence Production, this amendment reduces the number of directors required for a quorum from five to three members.
Finally, it is considered that a number of its officers and staff should be brought under the Civil Service Superannuation Act, as are the employees of other crown companies and agencies. Consequently, this bill gives the governor in council power to designate certain officers and employees of the corporation to receive the benefits of superannuation under the latter act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN AND BRITISH INSURANCE COMPANIES ACT


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 285, to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, 1932.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for two amendments to the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act. One relates to the provision in the act which now limits to ten per cent the proportion of profits from participating policies which may be transferred to shareholders' account. In point of fact, that ten per cent is the maximum. In the case of smaller companies that proportion is transferred; but over the years the larger companies have voluntarily reduced that proportion, in the case of the largest company the proportion being 2J per cent. It is considered desirable now to limit by statute the proportion which may be transferred to shareholders' account from the participating policy account, and the limitation will be substantially in line with the present practice.
The second amendment extends to participating policyholders the right to vote by proxy. Under the act as it stands at the present time, in the case of life insurance companies, policyholders may vote in person but not by proxy. Both of these proposed amendments are, I think, a further protection to the participating policyholder.
As is usual in dealing with bills of this kind, I would propose that on second reading it be referred to the banking and commerce committee.
2976

Private Bills
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read
a second time?


Douglas Charles Abbott: If the house were to give
unanimous consent-I do not know whether there is a desire to debate the bill-I would move second reading today and have it referred to the banking and commerce committee; otherwise it could stand over. I do not think there is any controversial question involved in the bill.


Mr. Graydon:: Has anybody seen the bill?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


Gordon Graydon: It is a bad precedent to give a bill second reading before anybody has seen it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Next sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. gentleman
unanimous consent to move second reading now?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, Mr. Speaker; next sitting.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 268, to incorporate the Polish National Catholic Church of America in Canada.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 269, to incorporate Independent Pipe Line Company.-Mr. Welbourn.
Bill No. 270, for the relief of Irmgard Magdalena Hetzel Lichtenstein.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 271, for the relief of Anna Boronow Walter.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 272, for the relief of Ann Smith Couldrey.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 273, for the relief of Phoebe Ross Kidd.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 274, for the relief of Alice Ann Gordon Lewis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 275, for the relief of Evelyn Serchuk Desjardins.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 276, for the relief of Vivian June Pomeroy Walker.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 277, for the relief of Vivian Edna Bartlett Tribe.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 278, for the relief of Jeannine Lafleur Leatherdale.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 279, for the relief of Bertram Kenneth Kidman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 280, for the relief of Louis Elie Yon.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 281, for the relief of Doris Mary Thompson Lummis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 282, for the relief of Estelle Tetreau Latour.-Mr. Winkler. .
Bill No. 283, for the relief of Mona Fern Barton Kirkman.-Mr. Winkler.


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	What were the totals of enlistments in the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian army (active) and the Royal Canadian Air Force respectively, for the month of April, 1951?
2.	What were the totals of releases from each service as above for the same month?
3.	How many were posted within the Canadian army (active force) to the Canadian army (special force) in April, 1951?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1 and 2.
Enlistments Releases
Royal Canadian Navy..	421	98Canadian Army 	802	334Royal Canadian	Air Force	1,229	86Note: These figures	are subject	to final
verification when documentation is received from commands and units, which will be about the end of May.
3.	Two officers and sixty-seven men.



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION


Mr. Knight:: 1.	What irrigation projects, and at what locations, on the South Saskatchewan river immediately south of Saskatoon, have received assistance from P.F.R.A.?
2.	What are the arrangements by which these ditches are constructed, maintained and used?
3.	How are the costs shared as between the federal, provincial and local authorities, and the individual farmers?
4.	How long has such irrigation been in operation?
5.	How many acres have been involved for (a) pasture or forage crops; (b) grain?
6.	Has the scheme been successful in terms of increased yields of crop?
7.	Are there plans for extension this year?
8.	To what extent have existing ditches or equipment been damaged by the Pike lake flooding this spring?
9.	What arrangements have been made for repairs necessary due to flood?
10.	How would such flooding be affected1 by the construction of the proposed South Saskatchewan dam?


Mr. Gardiner:: 1.	Pike lake-townships 32 to 36, range 6, west 3; Valley park-sections 27 to 34, township 33, range 6, west 3; Frenchman flats- townships 32 and1 33, ranges 5 and 6, west 3.
2.	P.F.R.A. assisted in construction of the main works only. Operation and maintenance is the responsibility of local water users' associations, formed under provincial statutes.
3.	P.F.R.A. constructed the main, works for source of water supply to be delivered to the distribution system constructed by the province.

4.	Pike lake, three years; Valley park, two years; Frenchman flats, two years.
5.	(a) Irrigable Pike lake, 900 acres; Valley park, 1,200 acres; Frenchman flats, 1,800.
(b) Cultivation and cropping; see answer to No. 7.	.
6.	Very successful in two crop seasons.
7.	Main canals completed. Extensions would be planned by local and provincial authorities.
8.	Main works not damaged. Provincial distribution system in lower section reported damaged, but not seriously.
9.	Provincial authorities advise distribution system will be repaired immediately.
10.	South Saskatchewan river project would prevent such floods caused by main river flow, but would not affect such floods caused by local run-off.



P.E.I. FISHERIES PATROL SERVICE

Mr. McLure:: 1.	Has Mr. Andrew Hutchinson, of Belle River, Prince Edward Island, been discharged from the fisheries patrol boat service?
2.	If so, when, and for what reason?
3.	How many fisheries patrol boats are operating in Prince county, Queens county and Kings county, Prince Edward Island?
4.	What are the names of men employed in this service, and when was each appointed?
5.	How many are veterans?


Mr. MacNaughi:: 1.	No.
2.	Employment is seasonal. Mr. Hutchinson-was employed in the 1949 season, but was not re-engaged for 1950.
3.	Prince county, two; Queens county, three; Kings county, one.
A seventh boat patrols both Queens and Kings counties.
4. Name	Date appointed in 1951
A. McPhail		
H. Campbell 			 April 16
R. B. Betts 		w
ffm, MacDonald .	"
W. B. Dyment . . .	n
A. DesRoches			 May 1
L. Noye 		w
W. W. Glover ...	w
G. H. Watts 		w
T. A. Gauthier . ..		 "
V. T. Doucette ...	tt
J. Llewelyn 		n
N. Macintosh 		n
A. Gallant 			 "
5. Ten served in 80709-40OJ	the armed services.
Questions



NORTH RUSTICO, P.E.I., BREAKWATER

Mr. McLure:: t. What steps are being taken in connection with repairs at North Rustico harbour breakwater in Queens county, Prince Edward Island?
2.	Will tenders be called for this work, or will it be done on a cost plus basis or by day's work?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Contract plan and specification -for this work have been prepared.
2.	It is expected that a call for tenders will issue within the next month. A portion of the repair work is not suitable for performance by contract, and it is proposed to proceed with these additional repairs by day labour.



NEWSPRINT

Mr. Bertrand:: 1.	Has the government an estimate of the probable newsprint output in Canada for the year 1951?
2.	If so, what is such estimate, and does it represent an increase over previous years, and in what proportion?
3.	What proportion of the increase, if any, will1 be for (a) domestic or national consumption; (b) the export trade?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Subject to raw material shortages and unforeseen difficulties, total newsprint production in Canada in 1951 is estimated to be approximately 5,450,000 tons. This will be an increase of 171,000 tons or 3-2 per cent over production in 1950.
3.	As there are no government quotas or restrictions on the distribution, of newsprint, distribution depends on contract positions and sales policies of individual manufacturers.


Mr. Bertrand:: 1.	Are the newspapers published in 1950 now subject to quotas in the allotment of newsprint?
2.	Is the quantity of paper necessary for the normal publishing of newspapers ensured by the said quotas?
3.	If not, what steps are being taken by the government to ensure an adequate supply to such newspapers?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	There are no government quotas or restrictions on the distribution of newsprint. In some cases individual newsprint companies, unable to fill in full the demands of their customers, are understood to be allotting available production to them in an equitable manner based upon their individual contract positions.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Newspapers are' obtaining their supplies in the normal way. The government has not heard of any cases of Canadian publishers with a contract for supply who are not expecting to receive all, or nearly all, of the amount for which their contract provides.
Questions


Mr. Berirand:: 1.	Has the government any information as to the probable average cost of newsprint in the year 1951?
2.	Has the government formulated any plans to deal with a possible increase in the cost of newsprint?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	No.
2.	No.


Mr. Balcom:: 1.	How many tons of raw cane sugar were imported into Canada for refining during the calendar year 1950?
2.	What was the dollar value of same?
3.	From what countries, and how much from each country?
4.	Has the government carried on any recent negotiations with the Acadia sugar refinery at Woodside, Nova Scotia, with respect to the reopening of their plant?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1, 2 and 3.
	Tons	Value
British East Africa ...	.. 76,430	$ 9,590,431British Guiana 	.. 110,531	13,649,767Barbados 	.. 63,764	7,275,841Jamaica	.. 141,192	16,364,279Trinidad 	. . 65,958	7,602,346Australia	. . 82,995	10,966,777Fiji islands	. . 82,231	10,131,549Cuba	. . 4,465	414,467Dominican republic ..	.. 4,704	413,754Totals	.. 632,770	$76,409,2114.	No.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Fair:: 1.	During each of the crop years 1945-46 to 1949-50, did the elevator companies operating in the prairie provinces have any overages of grain as a result of their operations?
2.	If so, what companies showed such overages, and how many bushels by each company in each crop year?
3.	How was the overage disposed of?
4.	What is the approximate value of grain sold as a result of the overage by each company?
5.	Did the companies receive full payment for the grain from the Canadian wheat board?


George James McIlraith: Return tabled.


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-EMPLOYEES NOT BRITISH SUBJECTS
Mr. Gagnon:: 1.	Are there any employees in the Department of Agriculture who are not British subjects?
2.	If so (a) what are their names; (b) respective positions; (c) nature of their work; (d) salary of

each; (e) place of origin; (f) by whom and on what date was each recommended?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: Return tabled.



DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	What was the total paid by the Department of Trade and Commerce for professional and special services in the fiscal year 1950-51?
2.	What person, persons, firms or companies received payments of $10,000 or more under this heading in the said year, what was the actual amount of each payment, and for what service was the payment made in each case?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Higgins:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government of Newfoundland, the resident engineer of the Department of Public Works at Newfoundland, the Department of Public Works, or any minister of the government, and any person, persons, or organizations since April 1, 1949, relating to construction or repairs of a wharf at Portugal Cove, Conception bay, Newfoundland.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, there is
no objection to the passing of this motion, with the usual reservation that we get the consent of the province of Newfoundland.



STETTLER, ALTA., POST OFFICE BUILDING

Mr. Beyerstein:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Post Office Department, the Department of Public Works, or any minister of the government or employee thereof and any person, persons or organizations, since January 1, 1948, relating to the erection of a post office building at Stettler, Alberta.



CAMROSE, ALTA., POST OFFICE BUILDING

Hilliard Harris William Beyerstein: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Post Office Department, the Department of Public Works, or any minister of the government or employee thereof and any person, persons or organizations, since January 1, 1949, in relation to (a) the erection of a new post office building; (b) provision of additional space or alterations to present building at Camrose, Alberta.



TRADE AGREEMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Government notiecs of motion-the Prime Minister-the following resolution:
That the subject matter of the Torquay negotiations, namely, the final act of Torquay; the decisions agreeing to accession; the Torquay protocol to the general agreement on tariffs and trade; the modifications of the schedules to the general agreement on tariffs and trade resulting from the Torquay

negotiations; and the declaration on the continued application of these schedules, be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to press this motion, but if it is the wish of hon. members to have the matter referred at once to the banking and commerce committee so that they may get fuller information about it before having any debate upon it in the house, I should be prepared to move it now. If, however, it is felt that there should be a debate before the subject matter goes to the committee, we shall have to find an appropriate occasion for such a debate.
Inquiries of the Ministry North America Act to provide for a three per cent turnover tax was still open to consideration, may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether there has been any indication from any of the provinces that their ability to carry out this program would be dependent upon tax resources other than those now available to them?


Mr. Marlin:: I have no such information.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Drew:: I think that it would be preferable to have this matter dealt with in the ordinary way, so that there may be an opportunity to consider the extent of the discussion that should take place.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: Then it will stand.
Order stands.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  A. J. Baler@The Balllefords: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. What provinces have signified their intention to be in attendance at the conference next Monday with respect to old age pensions?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister stated last Monday that it was the intention, pursuant to the assurance given by him at the dominion-provincial conference last December, as soon as the provinces had, intimated their willingness to agree to a constitutional amendment, to provide for a continuing committee to discuss the matter of old age security legislation in so far as it
foncerns the provinces. That day, under the 'rime Minister's name, a telegram was sent to each of the provinces asking them if it would be convenient for them to attend the proposed conference on May 21. All provinces have signified their intention to attend a conference. However, the acting premier of Quebec has indicated that May 21 would not be a convenient date. As a result, his request has been communicated to the other provinces suggesting that we meet on May 23.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? In view of the Prime1 Minister's statement a week ago Friday that the possibility of an amendment to the British
und- y
sultry"'
Jwie


Mr. L. T. Slick (Trinily-Conceplion):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. On March 12 I asked the Minister of Finance a question regarding the convertibility of sterling into Canadian funds. Since then I understand the Minister of Fisheries has been looking after the matter. My question is this. The fishermen of Newfoundland are most anxious to know the result; of negotiations with the government of United Kingdom for an extensiop 'of the arrangements to sell Newfoundland salted codfish in European markets for sterling. Can the Minister of Fisheries indicate the position at this time? ,


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, evidently a number of Newfoundland members were at church yesterday and offered a word of prayer that this convertibility would be a reality. In coming here today they ire looking for an answer to the prayer. I Am glad to be able to say that it has been effective.


George Alexander Drew: I am glad there is one method by which we can get action from this government.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I am happy to inform the hon. member for Trinity-Conception that we have today received word from the United Kingdom, through the Department of Finance, that they have agreed to extend the arrange-me/nt for another year covering the catch of 19^1, subject to an over-all ceiling of $4 million. This will provide for sales to Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain at levels comparable tp those from the 1950 catch. It will be recalled (/hat at the time of union the United Kingdom (agreed to an extension of this arrangement /for one year only. Agreement to further / extensions has been most helpful, particularly to Newfoundland.
This special arrangement with respect to the sale of salted cod for blocked sterling represents a temporary solution pending the more basic reorganization of the fisheries

2980	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry being worked out by the joint federal-provincial fisheries development committee. Already much new private capital is being invested in filleting and freezing plants.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the government comply with the recent request of a delegation consisting of Mr. B. K. Sandwell and others for the introduction in both houses of parliament this session of a resolution approving the inclusion in the Canadian constitution of a declaration of human rights and liberties, and that pending appropriate legislation such approval should affirm parliament's acceptance on behalf of Canada of the United Nations declaration of human rights?
y. Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister): As promised the delegation consisting ol' She Canadian committee for a bill of rights a\nd associated organizations, the Secretary b.f State for External Affairs, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and I reported to our colleagues the representations that had been made. The question calls for a statement of government policy in that regard. I am not in a position to make that statement of policy today. I hope to be able to do so within the next few days.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Francis Higgins: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the unemployment insurance office at Amherst, Nova Scotia, arranging for the employment of men for construction work for the United States government at Goose Bay airport?	;


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labotir):: Orders for workers have been received, Aot from the United States government but fro^n the Canadian office of Drake, Merritt an^d Piper, of Moncton, New Brunswick, who ark contractors for the work on the airport. These! orders have been placed through the Moncton/ office of the unemployment insurance commis- # sion and have been cleared through various/ offices, of which Amherst, Nova Scotia, is one.
rMr. Mayhew.]



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, May 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson:
That votes No. 84 to No. Ill inclusive, and vote 566 of the main estimates 1951-1952 be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the standing committee on external affairs, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.
Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: On the
last day that this debate was held I challenged the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) to justify a certain statement that he had made. Since then I have had an opportunity of reading his remarks in Hansard. I believe they are somewhat different from the words that he used, according to my notes, but there is no difference in the sense. According to Hansard he said, as reported at page 2754:
It is also sometimes loosely said that the United Nations forces are fighting in Korea to defeat communism. There is perhaps some colour for this mistake, since the aggression perpetrated is by the communist states, and has its roots in the totalitarian communist nature of those states. Free men everywhere must be determined to resist communism. But it is a confusion, I think, of categories to think that communism as a doctrine or form of government must be fought by armed forces, or that such is the purpose of United Nations military action in Korea.
Then he went on to say:
Communism itself, as a reactionary and debasing doctrine, must be fought on other planes and in different ways.
I realize, sir, that the minister is trying very subtly to show a distinction between communism as it exists in theory and what we are fighting in Korea, but I wish to submit to him that there is no distinction between communism as it exists in the world actually and communism as we are facing it in Korea; that communism and aggression in Korea are synonymous terms. In support of that I should like to draw attention to observations made by his colleague who sits next to him, the Minister of National Defence (Nfr. Claxton), in the debate the very next day, when he used this expression, as reported at page 2800 of Hansard:
This is a fight, Mr. Speaker, in which international police action is working to stop communist aggression, communist gangsters.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs himself, in his speech before the United Nations on September 27, had a somewhat different approach, and was not so subtle in making a distinction. He said:
This war in Korea is but the continuation by armed and open aggression of the policies which communist imperialism has been pursuing by other means in other states. It is part of the theory of

communism that the disruptions and dislocations of a post-war period give to a communist minority its best chance to seize power by force and maintain it by the terror and repression of the police state. Systematically the forces of communist imperialism, in these last years, have been trying out these theories in the four corners of the world.
I think, sir, the observation of the Minister of National Defence, and that speech from which I have just quoted of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, are more in line with reality than the observations made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on May 7. It is very confusing; the ordinary man or woman cannot follow the argument that tries to distinguish between actual communist aggression and the communistic doctrine or form of government.
In his speech at the United Nations on September 27 the minister, describing the attack in Korea, also said this:
In Korea, where the Soviet army had been present in force and where a communist minority was established in power in part of the country, conditions seemed admirably suited for communist seizure of the whole country. This time, however, the attempt was more open and violent than usual, and this time it met with collective United Nations resistance. This is what makes the aggression in Korea stand out. Despite all propaganda camouflage, the fact that North Koreans invaded the Republic of Korea was clear. This was not a coup d'etat engineered by a minority as in Czechoslovakia, nor a regime imposed by an occupying force as in Roumania. This was armed invasion. As such, it came as a shock to peace-loving nations. But it also acted as a stimulus to them. A swift and sudden assault on a peaceful nation had an obvious meaning for us all.
Mr. Speaker, I submit it still has the same meaning, but the Secretary of State for External Affairs and some of his associates seem to be forgetting that it still carries the same meaning. Communism is not and has not been for thirty-four years merely a doctrine or form of government. It is a diabolical dynamic thing. It is a comprehensive policy with many doctrines aiming at the destruction of all the freedoms and the inherent and hard-won rights of man. It is the darkest and direst, shadow that has ever fallen upon this earth.
Winston Churchill, in his book "Great Contemporaries", 1937 edition, at pages 199200, discusses this point. I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs must be familiar with the passage. I apologize for its length, but it seems to me it is most appropriate to be used in reminding the minister about communism and what it means. Mr. Churchill says:
But communism is not only a creed.
A creed is a little more than a doctrine, because a creed embraces many doctrines.
It is a plan of campaign. A communist is not only the holder of certain opinions; he is the pledged adept of a well-thought-out means of enforcing them. The anatomy of discontent and revolution has been studied in every phase and aspect,
External Affairs
and a veritable drill book prepared in a scientific spirit for subverting all existing institutions. The method of enforcement is as much a part of the communist faith as the doctrine itself. At first the time-honoured principles of liberalism and democracy are invoked to shelter the infant organism. Free speech, the right of public meeting, every form of lawful political agitation and constitutional right are paraded and asserted. Alliance is sought with every popular movement towards the left.
The creation of a mild liberal or socialist regime in some period of convulsion is the first milestone. But no sooner has this been created than it is to be overthrown. Woes and scarcity resulting from confusion must be exploited. Collisions, if possible attended with bloodshed, are to be arranged between the agents of the new government and the working people. Martyrs are to be manufactured. An apologetic attitude in the rulers should be turned to profit. Pacific propaganda may be made the mask of hatreds never before manifested among men. No faith need be, indeed may be, kept with non-communists. Every act of good will, of tolerance, of conciliation, of mercy, of magnanimity on the part of governments or statesmen is to be utilized for their ruin. Then when the time is ripe and the moment opportune, every form of lethal violence from mob revolt to private assassination must be used without stint or compunction. The citadel will be stormed under the banners of liberty and democracy; and once the apparatus of power is in the hands of the brotherhood, all opposition, all contrary opinions must be extinguished by death. Democracy is but a tool to be used and afterwards broken; liberty but a sentimental folly unworthy of the logician. The absolute rule of a self-chosen priesthood according to the dogmas it has learned by rote is to be imposed upon mankind without mitigation progressively for ever. All this, set out in prosy textbooks, written also in blood in the history of several powerful nations, is the communist's faith and purpose. To be forewarned should be to be forearmed!
And then Churchill says this, about his own writing:
I wrote this passage nearly seven years ago; but is it not an exact account of the communist plot which has plunged Spain into the present hideous welter against the desires of the overwhelming majority of Spaniards on both sides?
And may not I comment, is this not an exact account of the communist plot which has plunged Korea into the present hideous welter against the desires of the overwhelming majority of not only Koreans, but also Chinese, and, I would say, Russians as well?
Communism exists only in theory. As we know it, it contains a militaristic element without which it could not exist and has never existed. Communism is but a name to cover tyranny, injustice, malice, hate, international enmity and persecution of religion. It is a movement centred in Moscow that plots and plans and aims relentlessly to control the lives of all the people of the world. Korea is an example of how that works. Therefore to placate or to appease in Korea, or with the Chinese communists, would in my opinion be a more serious disaster than was Yalta, and with more serious consequences. The plan in Korea is not a solitary instance, but part of a pattern, a proposed

External Affairs
Asiatic or eastern pattern, for world domination. Therefore a negative statement of policy such as we have had from the minister, and which we now hear from statesmen in the United Nations, gives little hope to the enslaved peoples of the world.
MacArthur therefore was a symbol. He was recognized by the free peoples of the world as a symbol, because he stood foursquare to all the winds that blew. He had a definite policy. He was sure of himself, and his definite policy was the reason for his being hated by the communists.
A most interesting commentary respecting MacArthur's attitude is found in an article which appears in the United Nations World for May, 1951. This article, entitled "Four Shots in Teheran," describes the assassination of the late prime minister of Iran. Referring to the cause of his death, the writer states:
One fact over which he had no control decided the issue-the Korean war.
Then it goes on to say:
In the days following the murder, when the mobs paraded in Teheran, one cry was heard above all others. It was not a cry for bread or tractors; it did not ask for social liberty; it was not directed against the lump parliament, the Shah, or the landowners; it was directed against a general then living m Tokyo. However improbable it seemed, the mobs were shouting "Down with MacArthur!"
In today's issue of the Ottawa Citizen there appears an article on the front page entitled "Ridgway feels U.S. does not understand issues." It is a dispatch from the Associated Press, New York, and says:
In a letter to his church, General Matthew B. Ridgway, supreme allied Far East commander, said the United States does not seem to understand the issues in Korea.
The letter was read Sunday by Right Rev. Pauli T. Sargent, rector emeritus of St. Bartholomew's Protestant Episcopal Church. He said the United Nations commander wrote from Korea:
"Would God the American people might see a full length movie of current events here in their true setting. It would. I think, make crystal clear the issues for which their sons fight and are content to fight. Yet America seems not to know.
Hundreds of thousands of poor people, the old, infirm, infants, the sick, fleeing night and day across country, over the ice of frozen streams in temperature at zero, no shelter at night but that obtained from huddling together and from such of their belongings as are on their backs or ox or small two-wheeled carts, driven to all this by one seemingly overpowering fear, the fear of government by communists.
Is not the issue truly whether some day our women, our babies, our sick and our aged, are to be driven forth by Asiatic masters, or now while yet there's time, this America and our allies may extinguish all petty issues and unite with all they have to destroy the greatest peril we have ever known?"
Communism is a colossal fraud and is deserving of our highest contempt.
fMr. Browne (St. John's West).]
There is another article, in the same issue of the United Nations World, by Eugene Lyons, an experienced newspaper reporter who -has spent many years in Moscow. He criticizes other correspondents who, with the assistance of the Russian government, have written articles and books praising the Russian experiment. He calls the Russian people the neglected item in the world equation. He states that the Russian people are prisoners in a colossal penitentiary and subjected to all the inventions of tyranny. They have to suffer many cruelties. They are not permitted to go outside their country or to have contact with other countries. They are not permitted to know the truth about what goes on in the outside world. A colossal fraud and injustice is being perpetrated upon the Russian people.
This article draws attention to the moral responsibility resting upon the statesmen at the United Nations and upon the statesmen of the world generally. Should the people behind the iron curtain be abandoned to their doom? The people of Poland were once allies of the United States and of the United Kingdom, but after the conference at Yalta they were progressively handed over into the hands of their former enemies, the soviet rulers. Do we think that these people and the other peoples in the eastern countries should remain for ever under that tyranny and under that injustice?
I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) is familiar with the enlightening statement made by Stalin to President Roosevelt at Yalta when President Roosevelt was advocating free democratic elections in the countries in eastern Europe. Stalin -said:
A freely elected government in any of these countries would be anti-Soviet, and that we cannot allow.
That applies to all countries behind the iron curtain-, and in Asia, especially in China, where a communist government is in power at the present time. It applies to Russia, where a communist government exists. I should like to direct attention to a pamphlet issued by the Foreign Policy Association as part of its headline series. It is entitled "Face to Face with Russia." It was written by Philip E. Mosely, and it says:
From the point of view of soviet leaders, war and peace are continuing, if not alternating, aspects of one continuous, inescapable struggle. The nature of the struggle and of the contending forces may change, as they see it. But the struggle cannot be wished out of existence. And "compromise" has an evil sound in the Russian political vocabulary.
Then at page 48 he states:
But does the soviet concept of continuous struggle [DOT]-a struggle which must last until the soviet form of socialism is adopted throughout the world

mean that war is literally inevitable?

Victory for the United Nations forces in Korea would be a setback for communism and would cast the deepest gloom over the Kremlin. But victory for the communist forces, or even a stalemate which might be paraded as a victory, would give them the greatest joy.
We have noticed recently changes in the foreign policy of the United Kingdom. It has changed its attitude in some respects, perhaps as a result of the terrible suffering inflicted on a British regiment in the recent communist drive. Whatever the cause, the United Kingdom is prepared to change its attitude. Last year the United Kingdom sold $350 million worth of goods to communist China while British soldiers were over there fighting communist troops and laying down their lives. I think the iniquity of such a proceeding is now being recognized. The United Kingdom also is reported to have changed its attitude on the bombing of bases in Manchuria. I believe it is now generally recognized that if large air forces should come from Manchuria and inflict serious damage upon the United Nations forces, the United Nations air force would be permitted to pursue them across the border into Manchuria and bomb the bases from which they come.
There are certain other matters in connection with foreign policy about which we know the general attitude of the United Kingdom, about which we know the attitude of the United States, about which we certainly know the attitude of the Soviet republic, but about which we do not know the attitude of Canada. I am going to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he does not think that this house should be informed on these questions and that the people of this country should be informed as to where Canada stands today. Here are the questions:
1.	What is the attitude of the government toward the recognition of the communist government of Red China?
2.	What is the attitude of the government toward seating communist China in the United Nations?
3.	What has been the attitude of the Canadian government toward handing over Formosa to Red China?
The government of communist China is a tyranny which has been imposed upon the Chinese people contrary to the wishes of the great majority. Neither in China nor in Russia would the government consent to have elections on any kind of a democratic basis, because they know they would never be returned. Let us avoid making any mistake 80709-191
External Affairs
that might enlarge the area now controlled by the communists. Let us rather give consideration to restoring freedom or enlarging the area of free government.
I must confess that I agree with General MacArthur and General Ridgway, that the place to begin is in Korea. I hope that the minister, who has expressed his dislike at Canada being an echo of anybody else, will adopt an original line at the United Nations and call for a widening of the bounds of freedom. Did he read the statement made recently in Frankfurt by the mayor of Berlin? He said:
It is not the strength of communist Russia we fear so much as the weakness of the western nations.
That weakness is not so much military or material as it is moral and spiritual. They fear the vacillation, the wavering and uncertainties that leave the people of the world in doubt as to what they may expect from the United Nations. If the poor suffering people of Korea, of China, of Russia, of all the countries behind the iron curtain, could only speak to us today, they would ask us to adopt a positive attitude such as was advocated not long ago by a very distinguished soldier whom I consider to be a great statesman.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate for the purpose of emphasizing one aspect of our external policy. I refer to what seems to me to be a failure on the part of the government in connection with its foreign policy. I believe the time has come when the government should grant substantial economic assistance to the backward and underdeveloped countries of the world. The government should introduce a measure to provide economic assistance to India in order to alleviate famine in that country.
I want to say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) that his statement of a week ago was very disappointing to me, not so much for what he said but for what he did not say. His statement was divided into two sections, and he devoted approximately equal time to each. The first section bad to do with friendly relations with the United States. Our relations with the United States seems to me to be generally satisfactory. I believe they have been fairly satisfactory in the past, are quite satisfactory today, and in my opinion are likely to continue that way in the future. Nevertheless the minister drew fine distinctions, emphasized fine points, and took half of his time to talk about our relations with the United States. In the second section of his speech he dealt with the situation in Korea, and on this matter I am in general agreement with him.

External Affairs
I feel, however, that he should have added to his statement a third section equal in length to either of the first two, and that section should have dealt with the whole question of economic assistance and technical aid to underdeveloped countries. He should have dealt at some length with the present famine situation in India, and he should have told parliament and the country what reason the government has, if indeed it can have a reason, for its failure to act in a generous manner toward India now in its time of need. Therefore I criticize the Secretary of State for External Affairs, not so much for what he said, but for what he omitted to say in his statement of a week ago. That omission underlines the basic difference between the foreign policy of the government and the foreign policy supported by the C.C.F. party. We believe that far greater emphasis should be placed now on the need for economic and long-term technical assistance to the underdeveloped countries of southeast Asia.
On May 2 I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) whether the government would consider a grant of food to India or a grant of money with which to buy food. The answer was that no policy in that regard had yet been decided upon. Eight days later the same question was asked by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), and he was given the same reply. In other words, the government has no policy to help meet the situation in India where millions of people are confronted with the threat of starvation. I do not think I have to emphasize the situation existing in India today. It has been reported in the press many times in the last few months. Officials of the Indian government in Canada and in the United States have pointed out that millions of India's citizens are today facing possible death through starvation, that in some areas the cereal ration, which had been twelve ounces per person per day, has been reduced to nine ounces, and in other areas to a meagre six ounces.
As I say, that situation is well known to the government, to members of parliament and to the people of Canada, and for the life of me I have no idea why the government has not acted in a generous way by helping India in this her time of need. Other countries in the world have taken action. Great Britain, with its austerity, and labouring under a severe defence burden, found it possible as long ago as October to divert to India 42,480 tons of wheat that she had purchased from Australia. She not only diverted that large quantity but provided the tonnage for its shipment to India. While 'he United States administration has not been

too effective so far in its efforts to help, it has done its duty by calling upon congress to pass the necessary legislation to supply two million tons of wheat to India.
Recently we learned that China is likely to provide a million tons of food grain in addition to 50,000 tons of rice. Even Russia is supplying 50,000 tons of food, and the Prime Minister of India has said that he hopes he may get 500,000 tons in all. As a producer of surplus food, Canada is certainly in an excellent position to be generous to India. Surely we do not have to leave help of this kind to Great Britain, China, Russia, or to the United States. Surely on humanitarian grounds, if for no other reason, a Christian nation like Canada should be prepared to help human beings in any part of the world facing a situation such as prevails in India at the present time.
In order to emphasize that point, I should like to say that I received, as did other hon. members, a letter dated May 12 and sent from the chaplain's office, Hart House, university of Toronto. It reads as follows:
In view of the increasing indications that famine in Bihar and Madras will become critical by the end of May, we would again urge our government to send substantial supplies of food to India at once, even at the risk of depleting our own stocks. We urge that this food be sent on humanitarian grounds, regardless of political considerations, as evidence of good will to fellow members of the commonwealth; we urge that it be sent as a gift, or on terms acceptable to the government of India.
The letter is signed by Patrick Daniel for the food for India committee. The names of the members of the committee are on an attached page. Among them one finds dignitaries of many of the great churches of Canada, the Y.W.C.A., heads of departments at the university of Toronto, and other well known citizens. On the second page of the letter there is the following:
We are also aware that theoretically Canada s situation is such that we have no other wheat available. But our concern, which we believe is the concern of a large number of the Canadian people, is that nothing should be left undone to get food to India as rapidly as possible.
The Canadian people, generous and Christian as they are, are prepared to make a substantial sacrifice if necessary in order that large quantities of food may be shipped to India to prevent starvation. In my judgment the only thing that stands in the way of action by the Canadian people at this time is the government's indifferent attitude. The government alone appears unwilling to grant large quantities of food to India, or to take such other measures as may be necessary to see that such large quantities of food do reach the Indian people.
In addition to humanitarian grounds, there are ideological grounds which would warrant

the Canadian government taking whatever steps are necessary to help meet this situation. I believe that members in all parts of this house are aware of the threat that communism presents to the free world. If we are to protect democracy as it exists in the world today, if we are to have that democracy extended, then we must help provide for every nation in the free world the economic basis upon which that democracy can flourish. In my opinion you cannot have democracy in a nation where millions of people face starvation.
In addition to the humanitarian reasons, I suggest that as part of the battle in stemming communism throughout the world, this government should take action now to provide the Indian people with large quantities of food. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the government should make a grant of at least $100 million. This might purchase approximately 50 million bushels of wheat.
I know the minister of external affairs may say that we offered India some of the only kind of wheat we have in surplus supply, and India turned it down. As I understand it, the quantity of wheat that Canada has already offered to India was attached to the Colombo plan and its $25 million. The government said India could take that wheat and sell it to the Indian people, then use the currency she obtained in return for the purchase of $25 million worth of goods to be used for technical assistance. I believe a quantity of wheat could be obtained from Canada now of a grade that the people of India would find it possible to use for human consumption. We in Canada, as was suggested by the leader of this group, the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) a week ago, should be prepared to accept a loaf made from wheat of slightly lower milling quality. By that means we could provide a quantity of wheat for the Indian people, even though it might not come anywhere near the 50 million bushels which I suggested.
Then again, I think it might be possible for the Canadian wheat board to put our No. 4 and No. 5 grade wheat through machines equipped for the purpose and have it separated into its various component grades. At least a portion of the No. 4 and No. 5 grade might be brought up to grades 2 and 3, even though the balance would thereby be placed in grade No. 6 or feed.
If that is not a practical suggestion, I have another suggestion to make. The United States has surplus wheat on hand. If the government were prepared to grant to the Indian nation $100 million, that money might be used for the purchase of high grade wheat in the United States. If the United States 80709-191J
External Affairs
government felt that its surplus of wheat must not be reduced because this year's crop might be lower than average, or next year's crop might be lower than average, then I say the Canadian government should tell the United States that when the 1951 wheat crop comes along the Canadian government will sell to the United States an equivalent amount of wheat of the same grade.
I have made these three suggestions, Mr. Speaker, to point out that if the government really wanted to help India it would find a way. If the government had the will it could certainly find the way. We have found it possible-I am not complaining about it, rather I support it-to make $1,600 million available for defence. Surely $100 million to prevent death by starvation amongst millions of our fellow citizens in the commonwealth should not be an insurmountable task for either the government or the Canadian people.
So far this year we have exported fairly substantial quantities of whole and skim milk powder. Of the approximately 9,244 hundredweight of milk powder exported from Canada in the first two months, only 100 hundredweight was shipped to India. In other words, of the quantity of milk powder we have been exporting, India has received only slightly more than one per cent. Milk powder when it is reconverted to milk is as wholesome a food as the whole milk. A large quantity of milk powder sent to India might prevent the death of tens of thousands of infant children from malnutrition and starvation. I certainly believe that is another suggestion that the minister of external affairs, the Prime Minister and the government might consider.
When the minister of external affairs speaks in closing this debate, I should like him to give us some good reasons, if he can, why the government has not done something. I plead with him, with the Prime Minister and with the other members of the government, not to wait any longer, to recognize that Canadians are a generous people, and to bring down a measure which will provide for an immediate contribution of food to India.


Mr. H. A. MacKenzie (Lamblon-Keni):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to participate in this debate, but since it has run into the second day I feel that I should like to make a few observations. I shall try to be as brief as possible, having in mind what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) said the other day about avoiding repetition. I shall try to avoid repeating what I have said on former occasions.
Last December I was one of the members privileged to attend the fifth session of the

External Affairs
United Nations at Lake Success. I found this one of the most interesting experiences in my life. I want to commend the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) for the great contribution the Canadian delegation has made towards this world organization that is striving so hard to stop aggression and to contribute something to justice and peace in our time throughout the world. I was indeed pleased to see Canada so well represented by a delegation 'of at least twenty-five young, highly-trained special officials from the Department of External Affairs. In my opinion this is one of the most important branches of government that we have in Canada today. The Canadian delegation also included members of parliament representing all political groups in the house. At times some of these were assigned to committees of the several branches constituting the United Nations, to represent Canada, and they did their work well. It was most interesting to me, when the nine o'clock conference was held each morning, to have the chairman of these several committees give a review of the developments that had taken place the day before and to report progress.
I am sure that I am speaking what is in the mind of everyone who has attended the general assembly at any time when I say that Canada's permanent delegate to the United Nations, the late R. G. (Gerry) Riddell was a most capable and conscientious young man. He was held in high regard by all who knew him and his passing was indeed a great loss not only to his own family but also to Canada. His place will be most difficult to fill. We all wish the young Canadian, Mr. John Holmes, who is taking his place as acting permanent delegate to the United Nations, all possible success.
I think I should at this time pay tribute to the chairman of the Canadian delegation, our own Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), who is held in such high regard by all, and to commend him for speaking openly and aboveboard of Canada's views on international questions. Because Canada is a member of the United Nations, there is no reason why we should just be a "yes" organization or that we must agree in its entirety with every proposition that is presented by other nations. I am sure his prestige in Canada and elsewhere has been enhanced rather than lessened by his stand that Canada as a member of the United Nations should be consulted with regard to policy in Korea or in other parts of the world.
I think it would be helpful at this time to review just briefly some of the history of
[Mr. MacKenzie.l
China; and I am going to devote the few minutes I have at my disposal to giving some of the background and some of the experience that I had in that country in the Far East. China is one of the oldest civilizations in the world and dates back to some six thousand years ago. It was formerly governed by groups or dynasties. Usually after many years of court life and luxury they became so weak and corrupt that another group would overthrow them and set up a government of their own. This last form of government was held by the Manchu dynasty. They held power for over two hundred years and became so weak and so corrupt that in October, 1911, this dynasty was overthrown, and the Chinese republic still observes that day as a national holiday. It is designated or named the double tenth day, or the tenth day of the tenth month that the republic was formed. But it was not until February 11, 1912, that the first republic was actually established. The first president was Li Yuan-hung. Nevertheless, Dr. Sun Yat-sen played the leading role and a few years later he was chosen as president.
It was most difficult to establish a republic for which neither the people nor the leaders had any previous training nor any program to follow. However, the government worked fairly well until the death of the founder, Dr. Sun Yat-sen. After his death in December, 1925, a three-sided war raged to see who would have control. This was between war lords or so-called war lords: Chang Tso-lin, the anti-communist at that time; Feng Yu-hsiang, the communist, and Chiang Kai-shek, who was then considered a so-called moderate.
Sometime early in 1927 Chiang Kai-shek was in command and was chosen president of their republic; and he held that position until 1949, when his armies and his government were defeated and he fled to Formosa. His government had failed to implement the reforms he had promised each year for the twenty-two years during which he was president, and he had lost the confidence of the people.
It should not be forgotten that China is a vast country, over one-third larger in area than the United States, with nearly five hundred million people, and a total of thirty-seven or thirty-eight provinces, or probably thirty-nine including Manchuria. It has frequently been said that Mao, who is now in charge, was Moscow-trained. The same, of course, could be said of Sun Yat-sen; and it is also a fact that Chiang Kai-shek was trained in both Japan and Moscow.
It is further claimed that one reason why the present regime could not be recognized

and given a seat in the United Nations is that the present government came to power by revolution and not by the people's choice; again, this is the very same method by which the former regime came into power.
On arriving at Lake Success the first morning we attended a meeting of the security council. As hon. members well know, this is composed of five permanent delegates and six non-permanent delegates, who are appointed by the general assembly each year for a period of two years; and I was surprised to see that the occupant of the permanent seat for China was a man that I knew well in China, namely Dr. T. F. Tsiang, who was the director of CNRRA operations in China. This organization was directed and appointed by the nationalist government to handle the supplies that were contributed and sent to China. They had charge over the allocation and the distribution of the $550 million worth of supplies that were shipped to China for the relief and rehabilitation of the ravaged and war-stricken areas in China, conditions caused by the recent war with Japan.
The terms of this agreement were explicit. They were that these supplies must be distributed without discrimination as regards race, creed or political differences; or in other words the United Nations organization as such was not taking part-and did not wish to do so in any way-in the civil war that was then taking place in China.
I am not going to elaborate on some of the difficulties that we ran into in the distribution of these supplies, any more than to say that there was a good deal of hostility with regard to the distribution of the supplies and even with regard to some of the supplies that were not distributed. Let me just give two instances. One was the United Nations endeavour to rehabilitate the fishing industry in China. They had purchased on the Pacific coast some 23 million or 25 million feet of the best lumber that could be procured, such as Douglas fir and oak. I did not believe that timber like that existed anywhere in the world. I wrote a special report on this matter, and I have the original copy. This lumber was bought and shipped to China in order to rehabilitate the fishing industry of China; in addition, many modern diesel-powered boats were to be sent. This lumber was to be sawed, to provide fishing junks for the people that could not possibly operate those larger boats. It was estimated that at least five thousand fishing junks could be produced. This timber landed there in good time and was piled up; and when I left in December 1947 there was not one stick used at all and there was not one junk built. Why, I do not know.
External Affairs
Another thing that caused a good deal of hostility was the fact that some of the supplies that were purchased by the UNRRA organization were war surplus supplies. In one particular shipment there was included about 50 tons of vinegar, Worcestershire sauce and lemon flavouring. That stayed in the warehouse for at least a year; and through our own organization, through the inspection and investigation branch that I was associated with, we urged that these supplies must move out to the war stricken and war ravaged areas. We were amazed when we knew that the same organization had shipped these 50 tons of vinegar to a relief organization in Shantung province in a communist area as a measure of food to restore the people to some sort of living standard at least.
You will say that that was a large organization, and probably mistakes could be made. Well, that is quite true, but what I am trying to say is that this man who was sitting there in that permanent seat was the man who was the director of this CNRRA organization when I was over there. So when the Peiping government officials appeared before the security council the spokesman, General Wu, delivered what was generally regarded as, and indeed was, a very belligerent and hostile speech, one that followed very closely along the same pattern of the Soviet union delegates. It was quite evident that his feeling towards Dr. Tsiang was very bitter, as he made accusations against him. That the Peiping delegation did not feel kindly towards this man was understandable, for he represented a party that was driven from the mainland of China by the Chinese people themselves; and now he was representing and speaking for the Chinese republic of 475 million to 500 million people on the mainland, while Dr. Tsiang himself was living in Formosa.
Another problem that was most contentious and has been given a good deal of publicity in the press is the future of Formosa. I think I should read into the record the Cairo declaration of 1943. This is the Cairo declaration of December 1, 1943:
The three great allies are fighting this war to restrain and punish the aggression of Japan. They covet no gain for themselves and have no thought of territorial expansion. It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first world war in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed. The aforesaid three great powers, mindful of the enslavement of the people of Korea, are determined that in due course Korea shall become free and independent.
That was signed at that time by the United States of America, whose president was the

External Affairs
late Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Chiang Kai-shek. It would appear, then, that according to the provisions set out in the Cairo declaration, if the Peiping regime were recognized and given a seat in the United Nations Formosa should be conceded to the Chinese republic.
If reports coming from Formosa and also from Hong Kong are credible there is considerable discontent against the present regime. Guerrilla forces are operating and people that offer any resistance to the government are being liquidated every day. It is further stated in the reports that the Peiping government are not able to cope with the bands of guerrillas and bandits, as no other government in China has ever been able to do. With a fairly large scale war raging, heavy taxes to support the army have caused grumbling, and the land reform program has met with a good deal of resistance.
No doubt a good deal of that is true, and again it is three years since I have been in China and conditions may have changed since then, but the former nationalist regime had also a great propaganda machine. If you recall, in the period from 1930 to 1940 the government was appealing for foreign aid and were stating that their enemies were almost exterminated-when the very opposite was the case.
I well remember reading, while in China in 1946 and 1947, headlines and press reports, almost every day, that the nationalist armies were achieving notable victories and continued daily successes, and any paper in China that told of any losses or reverses was immediately suppressed and confiscated.
When I left China in December, 1947, Chiang Kai-shek and the nationalist government had large armies at their command, and had control of all the major cities such as Shanghai, Peiping, Nanking and Canton, as well as all transportation, and Chiang Kai-shek made daily claims of his successes. But his regime collapsed a short time after that date, so that naturally reports coming from Formosa must be discounted. A few minutes ago I heard somebody mention the fact that about 50 thousand tons of rice had been supplied by China to India. I do not believe that that report can possibly be true. They could not possibly do that unless they stripped the food from their own people to do it. I do not believe they can feed their own people. Therefore these reports cannot be taken at face value.


Major James William Coldwell: Will the hon. member permit a question? Is he aware that that was Premier Nehru's announcement, and the rice was on the way?


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: It is true that that was in the report, but again I cannot see how that report can be correct. I am aware that that was the announcement, but I cannot see how it could be true.
It has been said by many citizens of the United States, when speaking in this country, that if the western powers had supplied the nationalist government with modern war equipment and supplies, this trouble in China would never have occurred. While it is true that the communists obtained a great deal of war supplies from Russia, yet it was United States equipment that played a large part in the defeat of Chiang's armies. It is a matter of record that whole regiments who were supplied with United States army equipment deserted and went to the communist army in a body.
At the moment there seems to be no alternative government for China in the near future. It is either the old discredited government headed by Chiang Kai-shek, or the present Peiping administration. It is claimed that the present government was not chosen by the people, and that it was brought about by force. That was equally true of the nationalist government.
We should not forget that communism in Asia has not the same meaning or significance that it has in the western world, and any attempt to line up all Asiatic people in a frontal attack on communism seems futile. To the Asiatic mind this is just a political name and offers a better standard of living, and as they have nothing to lose they accept it.
It seems to me that if we could convince the Asiatic people that this whole scheme is a Moscow plot, with its motive to promote Russian imperialism and aggression and world domination, we should have much greater chance of success.


William Joseph Browne: Will the hon. member permit one question? Has he seen the testimony of General Marshall, who visited Chou En-lai, and who stated that he was a communist, and had pictures of Stalin and Marx in his encampment where he visited him?


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: I am talking about the situation in China when I was there. That was the situation as it appeared to me, and that was the information that I got after making very careful inquiries. That was the situation as it was then. I was fortunate enough to meet General Marshall in Shanghai, when he made a visit there. I do not know anything definite about what has taken place since that time.

It is a mistake to proclaim too loudly that China is a satellite of Russia. China, I believe, is firmly in the Russian camp at present and regards Russia as her friend. But the oriental mind is always suspicious of the foreigner and once they realize that they are being dominated by Moscow she will leave her orbit very quickly without much prodding from abroad.
I want to state here briefly some of my own experiences while I was in China. I reported in Washington in the fall of 1945, and I spent a full month there.
When I got badly depressed, which I did once in a while, I went in to have a little visit with the then Canadian ambassador, who now happens to be Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), and I always felt better after I came out. I want to add this, that in the training we received in Washington before we went to China, while we were not told this in so many words, the general belief with respect to the over-all picture was that we must support the regime that was there.
I went over to China fully convinced that the government that was there was a modern Moses that would lead the people to the promised land, and that that was the only way we could get peace and harmony in China. I remember distinctly reading an article which appeared in the China News of February 16, 1946, and entitled "Soong Lauds Canada for Loan to China". The China News was a daily publication in English, that had a Chinese edition as well, and was printed by the Soong interests. I think Dr. Rung really was the owner. At any rate it was published daily in China. This dispatch, dated at Chungking, states:
Commenting on the Canadian loan of U.S. $60,000,000 that has just been completed with China, Dr. T. V. Soong, President of the Executive Yuan, said:
Canada had an enviable war record. Literally from scratch, she developed the munition industry that, despite her small population, made her the third or fourth largest arsenal of democracy. During the war, she was most generous and forthcoming in sending assistance to her allies, and China's war efforts were greatly benefited therefrom.
In giving to China her first post-war foreign loan, Canada, under the leadership of Prime Minister Mackenzie King, is carrying on the cooperation between China and Canada into a new era of reconstruction, and it is fortunate for us that, along with the United States, she constitutes our next door neighbours across the water.
I read that with a good deal of pride, and kept it, as I did many other clippings from China, and brought it home. In six months' time, after living with the people and after visiting the major cities in China, I was convinced we could not possibly win with
External Affairs
the government that was there. It was my conviction that we were backing a government that could not possibly succeed.
Indeed, I was so convinced of that that, believe it or not, I wrote letters in the matter.
I wrote weekly or monthly letters, and certainly always occasional letters to the press which, occasionally, were published. I was not surprised to find that the press did not publish all of them, because I am not a good letter writer, and I appreciate fully the fact that all of them were not worth publishing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Did the hon. member write in Chinese?


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: However, quite a few of them were published. I should like to read an excerpt from a letter of June 9, 1947. I kept copies of my letters, of which this is one. My good friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) knows that some of my letters appeared in the Windsor Star. This is one that did, and it is part of it I shall read.
At the time in question there was a large quantity of raw cotton in China. UNRRA had sent in 1946 about 540,000 bales of raw cotton. Much of this was not sold and the suggestion was that permission be given to sell it so as to get enough money to keep the army of the Chiang machine going. My letter was, in part:
For many months support from the U.S. had been proposed in the nature of a $500,000,000 loan and this would doubtlessly help, but temporarily only, as it would only be a dollar each, which in my opinion would only be a spot on the blotter and doomed to ultimate failure, unless the government is willing to put into effect immediate and sweeping reforms that will put its governing and fighting machinery on an honest and efficient basis. The facts are that the vast majority of the thinking people of China have little confidence in the present administration.
Bear in mind that this was written after I had been there a little more than a year. Later in the same letter I wrote:
The army is very poorly paid, and when the troops pass through a district they take their living from the land*. Can you imagine how the farmers feel when their crops and all farm produce are confiscated? Communism surely thrives under such conditions. In any event it seems that the time has come when we must admit there is virtually no hope of foreigners settling this question. The Chinese people and the government must realize that they cannot go on indefinitely asking for and receiving help, for China must get on her own feet, and soon.
UNRRA has shipped huge relief supplies into China, up to the present over two million long tons.
When I returned to Canada I stated publicly and in many places that my views had changed. I had changed my mind-and I do not see anything wrong with changing one's mind. It is clear that people throughout the country do that. I am sure many people in Canada must have changed their minds between the

External Affairs
elections of 1930 and 1935. I see no reason why an individual should not change his mind, if he is convinced he is wrong.
When I returned to Canada I stated publicly in many places that a foundation could not be built on sinking sand, and pointed out that there was no foundation in China upon which to build. I pointed out there was no hope of restoring peace and unity in a country as large as China, particularly when it was as corrupt and totally incompetent as China was.
I remember saying in the house in 1949 that I believed the Peiping government should be recognized and given a seat in the United Nations. By doing that we would not have been approving or disapproving of the type of government in that country. Such action would not have been an expression of that kind on our part. It would have been only a recognition of the acknowledged fact that here were a people who had come into power, as had happened in many other countries, a people who had control of the councils of the country, who had put some reforms into effect, and who had obtained a measure of obedience from a people who represent almost a quarter of the world's population.
I believe that at that time such a move would have been comparatively easy. But it is a much different story today. It would be most difficult if not impossible, in view of the situation in Korea and the fighting that is taking place there, to do it now.
The question is often asked whether it would have made any difference if communist China had been recognized. That is a question no one can answer. It seems to me there is no use elaborating upon it, because no one knows the answer. I think all will agree however that conditions could not very well be any worse. I appreciate that nothing can be gained by reviewing that situation now.
I believe I was right in speaking as plainly as I could on the occasion I have indicated. I attended a Rotary Club luncheon today, and heard a gentleman refer to the definition of a realist. When I was in China I tried to be a realist. It is said that at the dinner table the optimist says, "Please pass the cream"; the pessimist says, "Please pass the milk", but the realist says, "Please pass the jug."
While in China I felt I was looking at the situation as realistically as I could. I have a high regard for those hon. members who have expressed contrary opinions. It was the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) who cautioned us not to be sentimental, not to be emotional. I listened to Madame Chiang Kai-shek when she was here in 1943. At that time I was one of her staunch supporters.
[Mr. MacKenzie.l
Indeed I almost reached the point where I felt I should go home, mortgage my farm and give her what I had. Of course I did not go to that length. I changed my mind when I reached China and saw the situation there. When I saw the conditions in China I felt I could not possibly support an outfit like that, one which obviously was lacking in democracy, Christianity and liberty.
I will say this, that I have a high regard for the people who expressed an opinion different from mine, and said that the nationalist government headed by Chiang Kai-shek had fought communism for years, and had fought Russian aggression for years. But it is my opinion that the nationalist government in China, which has been headed for the last 22 years by Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, has done more to create and spread communism than all other factors combined. I have nothing to say about the personal integrity of Chiang Kai-shek, but if you are the manager of a ball team you are responsible for the behaviour of its members. In the same way with the government of Canada, if the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) goes wrong-


Paul Joseph James Martin: No danger of that.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: -the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) of this country has to take the responsibility. The nationalist government headed by Chiang Kai-shek must accept responsibility for what has been done.
I do not wish to say anything further at this time about the merits or demerits of the former regime in China. British policy is based on the belief that the main reason it was driven from China was that it no longer commanded general support and the only way it could ever return to Peiping would be by a major conflagration, involving large-scale intervention by outside powers or by the United Nations as a whole on the mainland of China. In other words, all the hopes for the former regime returning to power are based on the failure of the western powers to achieve a peaceful settlement.
Economic aid is vitally necessary, but instead of being used to bolster up discredited regimes, it should be accompanied by social planning to remove the grave injustices of a system in which the great mass of the peasants are in the grip of landlords and usurers. Economic aid should not be used to interfere in the internal affairs of backward and undeveloped countries, but remedy of social abuses should be made a condition of its being granted. And it must be clearly stated what is the democratic way of life.
Peace is not in sight and troublesome days lie ahead. The last five years have been

years of frustration. Russia and her satellites have attempted to block every move for world co-operation. Russia's attitude, whether the reason is fear, suspicion or a deliberate attempt to create international chaos, has been most discouraging. Anyone who has attended the United Nations can readily see that Russia and her satellites do not want to co-operate but are merely using the United Nations as a propaganda outlet in order to have the 700 million people to whom their speeches are broadcast believe that they are fighting for their liberty and welfare.
Indeed it is my belief that Russia does not want communist China seated at the United Nations, but is using this opportunity simply to endeavour to curry favour with them. The only hope of the world lies in the success of the United Nations, and the Canadian people must support wholeheartedly every move to strengthen this body.


Mr. John Decore (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few brief observations in this debate. Considerable discussion has taken place in this chamber with reference to the Korean war. Hon. members of the opposition have stated their views, which I think can be summarized briefly. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) has criticized the United Nations policy in Korea because it has tried to achieve its objective without a clear-cut plan. The C.C.F. group, with the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) as their spokesman, suggested a five-point proposal and stated that the time was now ripe to end the Korean conflict by means of negotiations. I think we all wish that the solution of the Korean war was as simple as that. I think it is clear to all of us, from the statement made on February 2 last in this house by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), that attempts have been made from time to time to end the Korean war by means of negotiations.
Another view with regard to the Korean war was expressed on behalf of the Progressive Conservative party by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) and the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), for both of whom I have the greatest respect. They seem to have adopted the MacArthur plan for extending the Korean war to China.
It is quite evident that the fighting in Korea while vicious is at the same time indecisive. Under the circumstances there appears to be no end in sight. However, I think it would be a fallacy on our part to believe that we have not achieved anything in Korea. It must be borne in mind that the prime consideration of the United Nations in participating in the Korean war is to resist aggression. This is in
External Affairs
compliance with the principles laid down in the United Nations charter.
Until now the United Nations have continued to resist aggression at the point where such aggression is taking place, and at the same time they have made every effort to preserve the peace and avert a new world war. I believe that our achievements in Korea have been quite substantial. To begin with, the United Nations forces have held back the aggressors. The United Nations forces have saved South Korea, which was the original purpose of going into the war. Although up to date we have been unable to reach the objective of unifying all Korea under a democratic government, we have upset the communist timetable for conquest and have relieved pressure in such areas as Indo-China, Malaya and various parts of Europe.
Furthermore, some of the experiences of the United Nations forces in Korea have led to the necessary reorganization and reorientation of our strategy and tactics. Korea has been available to us as a proving ground for this purpose. Above all, the Korean incident has awakened the western world to the dangers and menace of international communism and Russian imperialism.
In the event that we should fail to arrive at a negotiated peace in Korea in the near future there are probably several other courses which may be open to us apart from the present policy of a limited war. The United Nations could withdraw their troops from Korea, recognize red China as a member of the United Nations, and turn over Formosa to red China. This is exactly what Moscow insists upon, along with the communist sympathizers throughout the world including the Moscow stooges here in Canada.
The withdrawal of the United Nations forces would in effect mean the throwing in of the towel. It would be a let-down, not only to the South Koreans but to all anticommunists in Asia. It would be a violation of the principles laid down in the United Nations charter and would in effect be the death knell of that world organization. It would have a most undesirable effect politically and psychologically, not only in Asia but throughout the world in general. Communism would certainly spread in Asia and this would amount to unconditional surrender to Russian, imperialism in that part of the world.
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs has pointed out, in Korea we are resisting aggression instigated by international communism. It is important, however, that the spread of communism in Asia be halted, and in halting aggression in Korea

External Affairs
we are at the same time halting the spread of communism in Asia. Although we give priority to Europe, Europe cannot be saved by losing Asia to Russian imperialism. The plans for world domination, as laid down in the Kremlin, are global in scope and not limited merely to Asia alone.
Then there is another course of action that can be adopted, the unlimited extension of the Korean war to China even at the risk of Russian intervention. This of course would be in line with the MacArthur plan. As a Canadian, I do not propose to take sides in the debate which is going on in the United States between President Truman and General MacArthur, but the extension of the present Korean war, and a possible third world war, are the very things that the United Nations are trying to prevent.
With nearly half a billion Chinese people to contend with, now under the control of the communist government, even if Soviet Russia did not formally enter on the side of the Chinese in Asia, we in effect would be shadow-boxing with our real opponent, Russia, if we engaged in a war with China. This would leave the Russian imperialists in Moscow relatively free to make their moves in Europe and in other parts of the world. In the event of Russian intervention in China, let us bear in mind that we are not ready to deal with that situation.
Only a few days ago General Bradley made a statement to the effect that we are now "buying time" in our preparation against a third world war. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) in his report to the house a few days ago emphasized that the United Nations are fighting to repel aggression in Korea. This of course is in compliance with the principles and the spirit of the United Nations charter, namely, that aggression should be halted by any form of collective action, including military collective action. The minister further pointed out, as reported at page 2754 of Hansard:
. . . it is not an aim or objective of the United Nations in its Korean policy to interfere in the internal affairs of any Asian country, to replace one regime by another. Its aim, as X said, is to defeat aggression ... by proving that aggression does not pay.
He went on to say:
Communism itself, as a reactionary and debasing doctrine, must be fought on other planes and in different ways; by the use of economic, social, political and moral weapons.
Personally I am a great believer in the use of political weapons. On a previous occasion in this house I endeavoured, to point out that international communism is being used by Stalin as an instrument to further Russian imperialism. I am also convinced

that the apparent unity which exists in Soviet Russia today has only been made possible through slave camps, liquidations arid mass extermination of racial, ethnical and religious groups as such. We can feel quite certain that the rulers in the Kremlin, in order to maintain unity within their borders or that so-called unity within the Soviet union, must resort to further mass exilings, slave camps and liquidations. There are today throughout the Soviet union hundreds of thousands of families one or more of whose members have been either liquidated or sent to slave camps for political reasons.
The Soviet union's weak spot is to be found in the smouldering opposition of the population against its oppressors in the Kremlin, which once aroused can become an effective weapon in favour of the free world. That an open revolt has not yet erupted is due primarily to the fact that the peoples of these unhappy countries are totally disarmed. The dictatorial regimes are not only fully armed but would not hesitate for a single moment to put down in a most brutal fashion any revolt or any signs of revolt. In addition of course there is Titoism, which we should also exploit by the use of political warfare. I only hope I understood the minister correctly when he agreed that among the weapons we should use against Russian imperialism or communism is the political weapon, and I believe that it should be utilized, and utilized effectively, without delay.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, before the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) closes the discussion at this stage, I wish to make some observations. Before dealing with the more general problems of international affairs, I wish to deal with two specific aspects of the work of the Department of External Affairs. First I shall refer briefly to a subject mentioned earlier in the present session, the number of conferences that the government is attending through representation on a large or small scale. I do not raise this point in any manner of harping criticism but rather in the belief that we must be prepared to examine the utility of every step that is taken by the government at this time. In the printed report of the Department of External Affairs for 1950, we find on page 61 that an international conference section was set up in January, 1950, to deal with invitations to international conferences. That is merely an indication of the extent to which conferences of all kinds have become the habit of the

day. The record shows that Canada was represented at a total of 168 conferences and meetings during 1950.
I am sure that a great many of them were very important. I know that many of them will have a profound effect upon the future of this country and the general attempts to establish a sound basis for collective action. On the other hand, I think that an examination of the meetings shown as having been attended by representatives of the government suggests that at a time like this, when it is so important to economize in every way, we should consider exactly what value is obtained from some of these conferences, and also whether some of them are meetings which should be attended at all by government representatives.
It is not enough to say that only one or two people attended these conferences in some cases, and that in others they travelled fairly short distances. In other cases many people attended conferences and they travelled very great distances. These conferences were not all conferences which can easily be recognized as having any real importance at this time. No matter how short or long the trip may be, no matter how many may attend, it is the principle that is important, the example that it offers to the people of Canada as to the real necessity for economy; and the fact remains that every saving that can be effected should be made. It is in that light that I raise some question whether in such times as these we should be sending a government representative to the international congress of chocolate and cocoa manufacturers at Lausanne, to a meeting of the directing council and sanitary conference of the Pan-American bureau in the Dominican Republic, to the society of vertebrate palaeontology and the palaeontological society at Washington, to the third assembly of the world federation of mental health, to the third assembly of the world congress on cardiology, or to the meeting in Paris to discuss the problems of foot and mouth disease.
That is only to mention a few of the conferences dealing with subjects which it would seem are perhaps more a matter of concern for the professional organizations related to these activities and business organizations, or in the case of health meetings dealing with specified subjects which are under the provincial governments they might well be the responsibility of those authorities. I am sure that a careful examination of this report will suggest many places where a distinction should be drawn between the function of government and the
External Affairs
function of the professional organizations and businesses concerned.
I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not questioning the standing or qualification of those who were sent. In the case, for instance, of the conference on cardiology, one of the recognized leaders in cardiology on this continent was sent. In the case of mental health a thoroughly competent representative was there. In other cases, the same observation is equally true. I am suggesting that the habit of sending government representation to every conference with the idea that, indirectly and in some uncertain way, some benefit may accrue is not in keeping with the necessity for economy, and does ignore the fact that the great professional organizations dealing with subjects of this kind, and business organizations interested in such problems as the manufacture of chocolate and things of that kind, will be fairly certain to see that they are appropriately represented at such gatherings.
Then I come to a matter referred1 to on page 49 of the department's report. In this case I am referring to something which has been a subject of discussion for some time, and which I think does call for a comprehensive, clear and definitive statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The report I mentioned refers to the shortwave broadcasts of the international service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I havp no doubt whatever that this service has a useful place in the struggle for men's minds which is taking place in the world today. On the other hand, it should be remembered that, quite apart from other activities of this nature, the specific provision for international shortwave broadcasting in the estimates amounts to $1,928,600. That in itself, even in these days of huge expenditures, is not an insignificant sum. What I am even more concerned about is the measure of supervision that is being exercised by the Department of External Affairs over this particular branch of the broadcasting activities of this country. There has been a considerable amount of criticism of some of these broadcasts. Naturally, it is not an easy subject for the minister or his department to deal with. The broadcasts in fourteen different languages, many of which are particularly directed to the countries behind the iron curtain, are naturally difficult to supervise and check because of the language difficulty, if for no other reason.
I do not minimize for a moment the difficulty of the minister and his officials in supervising this particular activity. On the other hand, I do think we should have much more information concerning the specific

External Affairs
allegations which have been made by responsible people for some time that these broadcasts have been rather sympathetic to the communist point of view, and that men with known communist associations still have something to do with some of these broadcasting activities. I would not raise this point were it not for the fact that these allegations have been made by very responsible individuals, and also were it not for the fact that I have from other sources information which inclines me to believe very strongly that there is a great deal in the allegations which have been made.
Not in any way to suggest that these remarks apply exclusively to these particular broadcasts but rather to offer an example, let me specifically refer to the broadcasts beamed to Czechoslovakia. The allegation has been made by different speakers on different occasions that Mr. Martin Dudak, who is engaged by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for some pa-rts of this work, has had an active communist association in Czechoslovakia before coming here. One of the more recent statements to that effect which I have read was the report of a speech made by Robert Keyserlingk, which he made over the radio in a very comprehensive summary of this subject a short time ago. In that and in other statements I have heard and read, it was stated that Mr. M. J. Hronek, head of the communist radio in Bohemia, was welcomed by the C.B.C. with open arms when he visited Ottawa, and generally given very close contact with the Czechoslovak section of the "Voice of Canada". As recently as March 26 last, there appeared in the Montreal Gazette a letter from the Canadian editor of the Free Czech information service of London, England, in which he enlarged upon these same allegations.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that in view of the fact that substantial capital expenditures have been made for the facilities which are required for this work, and the fact also that an increasing amount is apparently required each year for the services of those who carry out these broadcasts, and also in view of the obvious fact that we now have in Canada many people from all the countries to which we direct these broadcasts who have known and vigorous anti-communist sentiment, we should have the most unqualified assurance that it is the anticommunist group who are being consulted concerning the nature of the broadcasting that should be done. In the explanation given as to the nature of these broadcasting activities, it is explained that they are intended to be of an informative, entertaining and instructional nature in so far as Canada is concerned. It states that they

are intended to be objective, and to give a clear picture of what is happening here. The charge is made that, in the case of the Czechoslovak broadcasts as well as other broadcasts, there has been a noticeable absence of anything that would indicate that the "Voice of Canada" is being used for positive anti-communist propaganda. I believe we must decide whether this broadcasting is for the purpose of encouraging immigration to Canada, or whether it is for the purpose of legitimate Canadian propaganda being directed to the countries behind the iron curtain.
These broadcasts which are sent to countries outside the iron curtain from which we may expect immigrants would be, I should think, properly of the type that would encourage those people to come to Canada. On the other hand, it unfortunately may be a very long time before the broadcasting behind the iron curtain can have that as its purpose or intention. In that case, it would seem to me that the broadcasting should definitely have a clear propaganda purpose, and the propaganda purpose should be the undermining of confidence in communism, and to demonstrate that we in Canada are determined to have nothing to do with communism, by all the methods that are open to the people of a free democracy. It is said that, as an example, during the extremely critical and important elections in Italy, when one of the great cradles of our civilization stood at the crossroads, the broadcasts at that time were so objective that it would have been difficult for any Italian listening to the broadcasts in Italy to have the slightest idea as to whether or not we really objected strenuously to communism. Nevertheless, at that particular time most thoughtful Canadians were deeply concerned about the outcome of that election. I would agree that it would have been unwise for us to have appeared to be intervening directly in the Italian elections. On the other hand, I believe we should have been using our propaganda mechanism to demonstrate, by every legitimate device, how thoroughly undesirable communism is, and how untrustworthy every real communist is in any country in which he carries on his activities.
Those comments with regard to those two specific subjects I leave with the Secretary of State for External Affairs for the purpose of bringing them to his attention, in the hope that they perhaps may receive consideration and that he may be in a position, now or at a later time during the present session, to give us some information as to the intention of his department with regard to them.

I should now like to refer to the broader aspects of external affairs. I am sure that it was reassuring to all the members of this house to hear the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the opening part of this debate, in which he spoke in the warmest and most unreserved terms of our relationship with the United States. Those remarks, however, did not explain away the statements he had previously made outside the house.
It is not a case of anyone in this house seeking to find in his remarks some meaning that they did not contain. It would not be enough for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to say that what he has said in this debate represents his real sentiment with regard to our relationship with the United States and that any interpretation which has been placed on any other remarks he has made, and which would give a contrary impression, was obviously the result of taking a meaning which he did not intend to convey.
There is no hon. member in this house who does not recognize the strain imposed upon cabinet ministers who are called upon to assume the administrative responsibility for their departments in these difficult times while at the same time they are asked to accept invitations to speak at a great many meetings in other parts of the country. Certainly there would be no disposition to overemphasize the importance of any single statement, separated from its context, where it appears that such a statement might have been made inadvertently, under the pressure of making many speeches, and without any opportunity to give full consideration to its possible effect. On the other hand, the members of this house have no right to disregard statements, made by ministers of the crown outside this house, which give every appearance of being the result of clear consideration and of being part of some established pattern.
If the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs before the Empire club in Toronto on April 10 stood by itself, there perhaps would be no reason to refer again to what he said at that time, particularly in view of what he has already said in this debate. But the speech does not stand by itself. The Secretary of State for External Affairs made other speeches at that time and since. They are speeches which must be regarded as carrying the importance of speeches made by the spokesman for the government of Canada with regard to international relations. For that reason one cannot disregard the apparent persistence of the
External Affairs
Secretary of State for External Affairs in trying to create the impression that the people of the United States are much too unaware of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I must say that the twenty million people or thereabouts who in a single year cross the border, coming from the United States in to Canada, seem to demonstrate a fairly active consciousness of Canada in the United States, as does the fact that probably no other country in the whole world seems to be quite so well informed about its neighbour and about the attractiveness of the neighbouring nation which its people visit. The enormous number of border crossings by automobile, by aeroplane-and I am speaking of private aeroplanes in this case-and by other means of transportation indicate a vivid consciousness of Canada. Nearly every important publication in the United States is carrying frequent references to what is taking place in this country. I mention this matter because it seems hard to explain just why there is this recurring emphasis on the failure of the people of the United States to understand or to know about Canada.
That, however, is a detail relating more to general information.	What is perhaps
much more important, and certainly more important to the subject now being discussed, is the nature of the comments which have been made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs about the policies of the government of the United States and the manner in which they do business; and also the way in which some of that criticism is conveyed by those officials who remain anonymous but who are customarily described in press reports as "usually reliable sources". I noticed a rather startling choice of words in a speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in Renfrew on May 3. I am reading from a report in the Ottawa Journal of the following day. In that may I read one paragraph which appears under the subheading "Hoop-La Diplomacy", and is as follows:
The external affairs minister decried what he termed "hoop-la" diplomacy. By this he meant conducting negotiations in the presence of television cameras and banks of microphones. It was to be hoped, he said, that diplomacy would retain dignity and not descend to or counterpart the elements of the vaudeville stage.
Having regard to the particular time when that speech was made, and having regard to the things of which we were all fully aware, there could be no doubt in the mind of any reasonable reader what diplomacy the Secretary of State for External Affairs was referring to when he referred to "hoop-la" diplomacy, or what place he had in mind when

External Affairs
he referred to television cameras and banks of microphones.
Then there is another paragraph in the same report which I think indicates a point of view which bears consideration. It reads as follows:
When exposed to the full glare of radio, television and headlines, he told the gathering, diplomats became actors and acted out their parts sometimes to the detriment of their real objective.
Mr. Speaker, already this afternoon there has been a wholly unwarranted attempt to attribute to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) and to the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) participation in a particular point of view in the United States which was not justified by anything they said in their speeches. May I say that it would be equally justified to suggest that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is taking a rather direct interest in what is going on in an important and friendly country, something which is out of keeping with our desire to maintain the friendliest possible relationship with them. I shall not enlarge on that because I should prefer to believe that we shall have come to an end of these attempts to hold up to ridicule the procedure which I am afraid is not going to be changed by what the Secretary of State for External Affairs may have said at Renfrew or elsewhere.
I suggest that when we are referring to the conduct of the business of that government which today is carrying the greatest load of any of the free governments of the world, we should not describe their activities as hoop-la diplomacy, and it would be much more desirable that their own particular methods be recognized as their own particular methods, and that we be more concerned with the extension of our own discussion in our own country, down to the last detail of our own affairs in that wider field.
The statement, however, did not even stand alone as there have been a number of statements related to those of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On April 19 the deputy -under-secretary of state for external affairs, speaking at the university of Maine, reflected some of these same ideas and some of our apparently increasing sensitiveness to things which are being said or not said about us in the United States. In a more carefully guarded speech, as was to be expected from his official office, the Canadian ambassador to the United States, speaking in the United States on April 23, made some reference to the same aspect of our relationship.

This is a time, Mr. Speaker, for us to make sure that we do all within our power in this country to keep our differences behind closed doors in friendly discussion, where they will serve a useful purpose. On the other hand, if there are positive problems in the dealings between ourselves and the United States, then let them be stated in this chamber in clear and specific terms. Why be so critical of the people of the United States? Do the members of this house know with complete clarity what Canada's foreign policy is? If all Canadians know what Canada's foreign policy is, then that would be the time for us to be critical, if any people in the United States are not aware what it is. Do the members of this house, let alone the rank and file of Canadians from coast to coast, yet know exactly what we have undertaken to do under the North Atlantic pact? Do members of this house know what undertaking we gave in regard to the defence of Europe? True, it was announced just over a week ago that we were going to recruit for Europe a brigade which may possibly be ready by the end of this year. Was that what we undertook to do? Was there anything else? Was that the time within which we undertook to do it? Have we any other undertakings not yet disclosed to this house?
These are not merely details of foreign policy. They are details which directly affect the major consideration now before the house, namely, the voting of supply; and certainly before we raise any question as to the adequacy of the knowledge of the people of the United States about our affairs, we should be perfectly sure that the people of Canada have full knowledge in regard to these very important matters, which have such a profound bearing upon the immediate future of this country.
What does the Secretary of State for External Affairs mean when he raises objections about being told by the United States that we are not bearing our proportionate share? Has the government of the United States directed such an objection to the Canadian government? If it has, let us know what the main features of that objection were. If it has not, then what was the Secretary of State for External Affairs talking about? Surely he was not referring to casual and uninformed criticisms by individuals in the United States. We would not expect the Secretary of State for the United States to deal so formally with similarly casual and uninformed criticism of the United States by individual Canadians, or by individuals of other countries. Either there is something

we do not yet know here in this House of Commons, and something which we are entitled to know, or the pattern of criticism emerging from the office of the Secretary of State for External Affairs is related to personal pique or some other motive with which our international policies should not be concerned at any time.
When I speak of this pattern emanating from the office of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I am referring to the similarity in a number of the speeches I have mentioned, and to the very much wider and more frequent statements which are being made to the knowledge of most hon. members of this house by those officials who remain anonymous but are quoted from time to time, and quite properly, by the press of this country.
There has been a tendency to engage in smug criticism of the discussion and the debates which are taking place in the United States at the present time, and to suggest that we would not be guilty of conduct of that kind, or what the Secretary of State for External Affairs has described as hoop-la diplomacy. It is suggested that much of what is coming out of Washington at the present time will greatly aid and comfort the men in the Kremlin. That criticism is being made not only in Canada but in the United States and in other countries. I question very much, Mr. Speaker, whether any of the information that is coming out from Washington, after censorship of the discussions which are taking place behind closed doors, is really disclosing anything that was not fully in the possession of the men in the Kremlin before these meetings began.
One thing has been conveyed, however, to the men in the Kremlin which may have a very valuable effect. With all its faults, with all its tendency to magnify apparent mistakes for political advantage, with all the embarrassment there undoubtedly has been to high-ranking officers and government officials, the mighty processes of democracy in the most powerful democracy in the world today are demonstrating to the rulers of Russia that free men and women are not afraid of free speech.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that there is much more to fear in the suppression of discussion in the United States, in Canada, in Great Britain, or in any other democracy than there is in complete freedom of democracy so that out of the exchange of ideas and the examination of weaknesses there may be greater strength for the long struggle which lies ahead.
External Affairs
All the records that related to that subject which were so fully disclosed in the trials at Nuremberg showed beyond all question that the greatest weakness of the German dictatorship was the fact that, with their suppression of free speech, a nation which has boasted great scientists, yes, and over the generations great humanitarians as well, had so completely suppressed freedom of speech that neither were the scientists able to develop the strength of which that country was capable nor had the humanitarians, who had lived there and had sacrificed life for their humanitarian ideas in the past, had any opportunity to check the bestiality of that vile regime that was in power and which visited so much horror and destruction upon the world.
As between too free speech and too little freedom of speech, the choice is all on the side of freedom. And I think that we in this country would be well advised not to be unduly critical of those who seek full information on matters of public concern, but rather to examine our own affairs and see whether we are quite as fully informed here in regard to all matters of public importance as we should be, at this extremely critical time.
I think there are many issues which call for very free and frank discussion here. Our method is different; we pride ourselves on the effectiveness of our parliamentary system. I think it would be well for us to demonstrate that our parliamentary system is receiving the full opportunity it should have to examine every fact of public importance which is not limited by genuine terms of secrecy.
Actually we in this country are not being informed as to details of the activities of the government in a way which would suggest that the Department of External Affairs and the Department of National Defence are really dealing with the issues of the day in the belief that there is the great emergency of which we were told at the beginning of this session. Either we are being made ridiculous by being called upon to give such vast emergency powers to the government, and to vote such enormous sums to meet an emergency, or we do face grave and urgent threats to our freedom which demand the most vigorous and most effective action.
We are being lulled into a sense of false security. The statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs gave no impression of the compelling demands upon every Canadian, if the emergency is really what it

External Affairs
has been described to us as being by those who asked the emergency powers in the earlier part of the session.
Time is the most precious thing there is in Canada today-far more precious at the moment than metals, wood, machines of war or even men. Yet, time is being tossed around as though we had so much of it that it did not matter. The postponement of decisions that affect the life of every Canadian, and pretending it is not safe for people to know what the facts really are, is a sorry reflection to free men and women on their capacity to maintain the vigour and full power of democracy.
It does not seem that we in Canada have yet recognized in all its implications the full extent of the change which has taken place in Canada's relationship to the rest of the world. The old position of diplomacy was very different from that which it occupies today. The man who is still generally regarded as the greatest writer on military affairs, Clausewitz, was merely restating an ancient military maxim when he said that a shooting war is merely an extension of foreign policy.
That statement was made when there were only a few very restricted international alliances, and most of the nations in fact carried on their affairs by themselves, shifting their position from day to day, trying to follow a somewhat uncertain course, but always with the hope of preserving peace- unless they were one of the few aggressor nations which have emerged in history from time to time.
In very large measure it was the absence of any clearly stated course, any clearly defined undertakings, which were responsible for the outbreak of the first world war in 1914 and the second world war in 1939. There is reason, and good reason, to believe that if in 1914 Germany had been convinced that an attack on Belgium, Holland and France would have brought together a great world partnership of nations in arms, the attack would never have been launched in the first place. And there is equally good reason to believe, without much doubt, that if Germany had known that an attack on Poland in 1939 would ultimately have brought together the United Kingdom, France, the United States and most of the nations of the western world, that attack might never have been launched or even contemplated. It has in fact been commonly stated over and over again that both the first world war and the second world war were avoidable and could in fact have been avoided if the democracies first of all had

been sufficiently armed and, secondly, had left no doubt whatever that they would act to prevent aggression.
The primary purpose of the formation of the United Nations organization was to bring together all nations who wished to preserve peace in a great international partnership which would carry forward the same ideals but avoid the weaknesses of the league of nations. This time there was to be no doubt; there was to be positive action to deal with aggression, and the thing that was going to preserve peace was the certainty that an aggressor would face the combined strength of those nations which believed in peace.
That was the core; that was the spirit; that was intended to be the driving power behind the United Nations. The hope of finally bringing to an end the age-long nightmare of recurring wars lies in the acceptance of that principle.
Two world wars in one generation carry to the minds of all human beings some realization that scientific advances have brought within measurable reach the destruction of civilization itself, unless further world wars can be avoided. This has brought us to the position in which we find ourselves today. For the very first time in history, Canadians are committed in advance to active participation in whatever combined effort is necessary to preserve the freedom of western Europe and prevent Russian aggression. Under the North Atlantic pact that commitment has been made, with the full knowledge of the Canadian people, and with the almost unanimous approval of members of the House of Commons.
It is however necessary for us to remember that Canada's active participation in the Korean war, and Canada's participation in the united effort of the Atlantic nations to prevent a war in Europe, are two different forms of commitment.
There was no commitment in advance so far as Korea was concerned, except the general acceptance of the obligations set out in the charter of the United Nations. When the communist army in North Korea suddenly launched its unprovoked attack under Russian direction on June 25 last year, it was necessary for the United Nations represented on the security council to make a decision as to what was to be done. That decision was made; and it was a result of that decision relating to the specific act of aggression in Korea which has resulted in Canada's participation in the efforts of the United Nations to preserve the freedom of Korea and deal with this act of naked aggression. Because of the fact that the Korean war raises special issues and that the action of the United

Nations was not related to any more specific obligation than the general obligation to which I have referred, uncertainties as to the course to be followed and the differences of opinion about policies and the extent of participation were only to be expected. They are perhaps only natural and they will be resolved only by a constant and active and clear-thinking review of the situation in Korea in the light of changing events.
. The situation in Europe, however, is entirely different. The twelve nations which signed the North Atlantic pact have joined in a positive declaration that they will take appropriate military action to prevent further Russian aggression in Europe and will combine their military and economic strength in every way possible for that purpose. There is no uncertainty, or there should be no uncertainty in the Kremlin as to what the commitment is. It is to be hoped that there is no uncertainty in the minds of the Russian people as to the decisions which have been reached and which have been accepted, and readily accepted, by the free peoples of the western world.
Because those decisions are for the purpose of preventing war and not for the purpose of dealing with a war already under way, as in the case of Korea, full publicity in regard to the nature of the agreements, the extent of the commitments and the manner in which all the member nations of the Atlantic community are carrying out their obligations is in itself part and parcel of the commitment to preserve peace and prevent a third world war. There may be reasons for secrecy in regard to our activities in Korea, but these should not lead us into thinking that the same reasons impose upon us the same considerations of secrecy in trying to preserve peace and prevent war in Europe.
One of the things which perhaps will prevent war is the extent to which the Kremlin, as well as our own people, is informed as to just how far we are going, how far we are prepared to go and the way in which we are carrying out our obligations so that they may realize the full strength that they will encounter if they should challenge the free nations of the western world. For that reason any secrecy or fast verbal footwork which may seem justified by an actual state of war cannot be justified in discussing or dealing with the decisions and action which are designed to prevent war by the extent to which we communicate fully to our only possible enemy exactly what may be expected if there is an act of aggression in Europe.
The decision to join in this full-fledged military alliance was made long before there was any sign of war in Korea. If war in
External Affairs
Korea ended tomorrow we would still have great obligations to carry out for the preservation of peace in Europe and throughout the rest of the world. As long ago as October 1949 the first meetings were held in Washington to discuss an agreement of this nature. Then in December of that year the Atlantic nations met in Paris and agreed on a basic strategic concept. In March of last year at The Hague, still some time before the Korean war started, a general agreement was reached in regard to the allocation of tasks in dealing with the threat of Russian attack. There has' been little secrecy, and there should be little secrecy as to what took place at those meetings because this is an association of free peoples freely asserting their partnership in this great cause.
That is the great distinction between our task in Europe and our task in Korea. The commitment of the member nations of the North Atlantic pact is one which relates to any Russian act of aggression in Europe at any point. No doubt has been left on that score. The commitment in Korea refers specifically to Korea and one of the major problems of dealing with the situation there is the fact that no matter how far the same nations might be prepared to go to deal with any act of aggression against any nation in the Pacific ocean or bordering on it, there seems little possibility of any general pact affecting Asia at this time which would create a general commitment in that area such as has been accepted in Europe.
For that reason the uncertainties which exist in regard to Korea and Asia generally should not lead us to the conclusion that similar uncertainties are in any way a natural counterpart in considering the steps to be taken to preserve peace in Europe. In Korea the forces of the United Nations are waging war. Let us never forget that grim reality. It is war in all its ghastliness. In Europe, on the contrary, the forces brought together under General Eisenhower are waging peace. We should never forget that hopeful reality. We should always impress upon the minds of our own people and upon the minds of our great potential enemies that we are waging peace in Europe and that peace is the one purpose of the strength that we are jointly trying to build.
No man can say for how many generations humanity still must live in an atmosphere of war, waste and insecurity before the dawn of that great peace to which all our efforts should now be directed. But certain it is that in the long search for some' practical plan to bring to an end the aimless destruction of war, the North Atlantic pact is one of the greatest milestones in the long history of mankind. I for one am certainly most

External Affairs
ready to express my appreciation of the contribution made by our own Canadian representatives to the drafting of the details of that vitally important international agreement. That pact is a challenge to stir the imagination of freedom-loving people, whether they live in the countries that are now free or are in slavery behind the iron curtain.
One of the things which it seems to me we must keep in our minds, to an extent that has not been true in the past, generally at any rate, is that it would be a very uncertain picture of future peace which we could build up before our own people, if the most we could hope for would be an armed camp on this side of the iron curtain with the nations on the other side of the iron curtain continuing their form of slavery indefinitely through the years ahead. I think that in addition to preserving peace for ourselves the ultimate ideal in the mind of every one of us must be that out of that peace which we preserve for the people who are now free there will also in due course come freedom to those nations which are now enslaved.
To us in Canada comes a unique challenge. As one of the strongest nations of the British partnership and the closest friend of the United States, geographically, sentimentally, and by ties of blood, we have an opportunity to play a role out of all proportion to our population. Since we have neither the immense responsibility of the United States nor the close geographical proximity to Russian power of the United Kingdom it should be possible for us to guide our course in a way which will help to bring together in closer and closer harmony the two most powerful nations in the western world.
The first consideration in all our dealings with the United Kingdom and the United States should be the negative policy of doing nothing which will cause friction or misunderstanding, or fan the dangerous flame of criticism which is already threatening to consume some of the good will and mutual confidence which has been so successfully built up in both those countries during the years of war and since that time. In the case of both the United Kingdom and the United States, there has been criticism by members of the government recently which has not increased harmony at all between ourselves and those two nations, or between [DOT]those two nations themselves. Unwarranted criticism of the good faith of the British government in connection with any contract between Canada and the United Kingdom, or criticism of the government of the United States for any supposed slights upon Canada

at this time, will not help to build that positive good will and understanding which should be the main purpose of Canadian diplomacy and of all the work of the Department of External Affairs.
If there are facts behind the criticism which has been directed toward the government of the United States, then let us have them out in the open now. Let us discuss them frankly, let us say what should be done, and then let us hope that we may for all time put an end to petty bickering of this kind at a time when the very survival of civilization and all that we hold dear in Canada and throughout the free world is challenged as it is at this hour. Then let us proceed on a positive and clearly defined course of oalm, sustained and vigorous effort to create harmony and good will, and to employ our unparalleled opportunity here in Canada to be the friendly interpreter and the strong linchpin between the United States, Great Britain and the whole continent of Europe.
At a time when communist propagandists are doing their utmost to create distrust of the motives of the United States in countries for which the United States has done so very much in these past few years, let it never be said that without due regard for the consequences we should ever appear to give succour or to give supporting evidence to those who are trying to create the impression in Europe and elsewhere that behind United States charity the ambition of world imperialism lurks in the minds of their government.
The supreme challenge facing free men and women throughout the whole world today is to do all that is humanly possible with the utmost speed to establish that measure of true international unity which is the one hope of stemming the tide of communist aggression, no matter how quickly we may be able to build up the combined force of arms of these nations. I am sure that it will be the hope of all of us that we may be able to establish a completely united policy for Canada in international affairs. I have been critical of comments which it seems to me might actually assist those who are seeking to undermine day by day the full understanding and confidence between the governments of the United States and Canada as well as between the peoples of the United States and Canada. The last thing I would suggest is that any such purpose was in the mind of the Secretary of State for External Affairs or anyone else who made a similar speech.
I believe it was my duty to express the opinion I have expressed because I have read, as many others have read, surprised

editorials in friendly newspapers in the United States as well as very bitter editorials in newspapers of the United States which are not quite so friendly. I have also read editorials in those newspapers of the United States which seem to take an unholy joy in trying to create distrust of the government of the United Kingdom in spite of all that they have done in the past few years and for centuries in the cause of freedom. Whatever the purpose may have been, let no member of this house suggest that there has not been an unfortunate interpretation placed upon these remarks. However, these remarks are past as long as they remain past, and as long as they remain a closed book which is forgotten in the positive evidence we give at all times in the future that our great desire is to build unity and friendship on the widest and strongest basis not only with the governments of the United Kingdom and the nations of the commonwealth, but with the government of the United States which shares to such a great extent common ideas and common habits of thought and speech.
Whatever our differences in regard to domestic policy in Canada may be, I would hope that we can find common ground upon positive and clearly defined international policies which at all times will make it possible to state the Canadian position as one and indivisible. If the government gives clear, certain and positive leadership along sound and constructive lines fully understood by the members of this house and by the people of Canada, then I am sure that there will be support from all parts of this house and from all parts of Canada for policies designed to create the greatest measure of international harmony, unity and good will. Behind policies of that kind there will be a united House of Commons, and there will be a united Canada.


Mr. Hansell:: If the minister is going to reply at eight o'clock, I should like to ask one question. According to this evening's paper it appears that the situation in Iran is growing worse. In his reply would the minister mind telling the house what Canada's position is with respect to that situation, or what the United Nations' position may be, Canada being a member thereof.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.
External Affairs


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secreiary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the house will, I know, expect me, in winding up what has been a very interesting discussion on this resolution, to deal with some of the detailed points that have arisen in the course of that discussion. I shall also try to make a few general observations before I sit down. In his speech before we rose this afternoon, the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Drew), indicated:, and I agree with him, that the diplomacy of Canada should be conducted in a frank way, but without provocation. He also indicated, and I certainly agree with him, that our foreign policy should be clear and decisive; that parliament and the people of Canada have the right to know where the government stands on the big issues in foreign affairs in these difficult, and indeed dangerous, times.
He said that we did not know that in 1914, and we did not know it in 1939, but if that knowledge had been possessed by the dictators of those years it might have been that war could have been avoided. He believed we should not make the same mistake this time. I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that we are making that mistake. This time I believe those who would disturb the peace know where those stand who would defend the peace. This afternoon the leader of the opposition said our obligations are precise and definite under the North Atlantic treaty organization. There is no room for any illusion in the breast of any dictator as to what will happen if he commits aggression against any member of that organization. We also know that the charter of the United Nations is more than words, and that the United Nations can act as well as talk. What is happening in Korea today certainly proves that.
The leader of the opposition went on to say the government should tell more to parliament and to the people of Canada about its policies. I agree that frank and full information should be made available in these times to the people of Canada in regard to their foreign policy, and in regard to the manner in which the government is conducting its diplomacy. This government tries, I believe, Mr. Speaker, to do just that. We do not need to apologize about the way we are explaining to the people of our country our policies in the field of international relations. I would have welcomed an application of that principle of full and frank information this afternoon by the leader of the opposition, especially in regard to the attitude of the official opposition to the developments in the Far East, more particularly in Korea and in China. I would

External Affairs
have particularly welcomed that because of certain statements that have been made by members of that party. While the leader of the opposition, Mr. Speaker, complained, if "complained" is not too strong a word, in rather general terms about the absence of information on certain vital matters, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) complained in regard to the absence of detailed information concerning specific matters, and he mentioned two. He mentioned Formosa and the recognition of communist China. '
Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government of Canada in regard to these matters has been made clear more than once in this house, outside this house and at the United Nations. If the hon. member is not satisfied, I would repeat to him-because I think it describes in a nutshell our policies in regard to these matters'-the last paragraph of the statement of principles adopted by fifty-two members of the United Nations, including the United States of America. It deals with the Far East problem in, general, Formosa and recognition in particular. We are bound by this paragraph because we accepted this statement of principles. The last paragraph reads as follows:
As soon as agreement has been reached on a cease-fire, the General Assembly-
That is the general assembly of the United Nations.
-shall set up an appropriate body which shall include representatives of the governments of the United Kingdom, the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the People's Republic of China, with a view to the achievement of a settlement, in conformity with existing international obligations and the provisions of the United Nations charter, of Far Eastern problems, including among others those of Formosa (Taiwan) and of representation of China in the United Nations.
As we rose this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I was asked by an hon. member opposite whether I could say something about the situation in Iran. This would be one occas-sion, I think, when it would be inappropriate and inadvisable for one in my position to talk about this particular subject at this particular moment. It is one of the most difficult and dangerous problems, affecting not only Iran but many other countries as well. I think it would be unwise on my part to say anything about it at this time, except to express the hope that these problems can be settled in a way which would be consistent with the national aspirations of the Iranian people and the legitimate interests of other people who have ministered to the well-being of Iran in administering the oil industry of that country which they have been instrumental in developing.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there were various questions, brought up during the debate this afternoon, and on the previous day when we debated this resolution, which I shall try to deal with at not too great length. The leader of the official opposition (Mr. Drew) this afternoon was critical about the expenditure which the department over which I preside for the time being had been making on international conferences. He was worried because of the possibility of extravagance in this regard. I do not admit, Mr. Speaker, that there hats been any extravagance; but if there has been, there will be ample opportunity. for members of the committee, when it meets, to go into every detail of every conference and find out where that extravagance was.
It is true that we are attending a great many international meetings these days. There are a great many international conferences. I wish there were fewer of them. But the fact that there are so many is, I think, a proof of the complexity and the importance of international life, and of the necessity for international mechanisms to deal with international problems.
I cannot resist the temptation to suggest that while the leader of the opposition criticized our attendance at many conferences, we have also been criticized in the past because we hiave not ourselves initiated conferences. I might add that we have had a great many more invitations to attend conferences than we have accepted. We go to these conferences and we try to be represented effectively at them, when they are of practical interest and benefit to the Canadian people. I know that someone will undoubtedly be saying to himself at this point:	What
about that now notorious conference of international chocolate and cocoa manufacturers in Switzerland? When that matter was raised some time ago by the leader of the opposition, he got a good laugh from his followers and some other hon. members; and I do not begrudge him that. But I think he will admit that it was a cheap laugh when I tell him that that conference in which the Department of Trade and Commerce was interested cost the Canadian taxpayers $8.99.
I know something about conferences myself, Mr. Speaker, because it has been my fate to attend a great many of them. I know how desirable it is to keep down the number of conferences at which we are represented to those in which our interests are affected. The leader of the opposition this afternoon talked about the increasing cost to Canada of these international conferences. If he had checked his figures-and he could have done so-he would have found that in 1947-48 the

vote for international conferences was $400,000; in 1943-49, the vote was $300,000; in 1949-50 the vote was $225,000; and in 1950-51, the vote was also $225,000. For 1951-52 the vote is also $225,000 but would have been reduced to $200,000 if the United Nations assembly had not decided, against the vote of the Canadian delegation, to meet next autumn in Paris instead of at Lake Sucoess. The cost of international conferences, therefore, is not increasing, Mr. Speaker; it is going down, or at least it is holding its own, and I hope that it will continue to hold its own. We do not want to spend money on unnecessary things these days.
The leader of the opposition, before six o'clock, also dealt at some length with the international service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Since six o'clock I have not had sufficient time to go into these matters in detail, but I have known something about the operations of this service and I have been able to get some information on some of the points that he quite properly raised in the house.
In taking down g few notes on what he said, I noticed that his charges-I withdraw that word-his comments with regard to the C.B.C. international service divided themselves into two parts. One was a general criticism of 'the tone and the content of the broadcasts of the service; and that was I think of a rather vague and general nature. The hon. gentleman referred to the statement of Mr. Keyserlingk on this subject; and there was indeed a strong family resemblance between the hon. member's statement and certain imputations which have been given circulation by Mr. Keyserlingk in regard to the objectivity of the C.B.C. international service. It is of course easy to give currency to criticisms of this kind which give a general impression of procommunist sympathies to the organization of the C.B.C. international service. That service is, I think, doing valuable work for Canada and playing a useful part in the psychological war against communism-which, as the hon. gentleman mentioned this afternoon, is an important part of the total war against communism-the struggle or the battle for men's minds.
These general criticisms of course would be more convincing if they were more precisely substantiated; and that may be attempted when the committee meets. By the same token, Mr. Speaker, I might say that they would be easier to reply to.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to interrupt the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order.
External Affairs


George Alexander Drew: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; there may be an echo here of which I am not aware. I was going to say that the minister has quite misinterpreted what I said. I was sufficiently specific to give the name of the man who it was alleged in the speeches, in that one matter to which I referred, had a certain connection with the broadcasting corporation. Surely that is sufficiently specific to be dealt with.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will come to that, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. gentleman was listening, he would have heard that I said I was dividing my comments on this part of the subject into those which dealt with general criticisms of the C.B.C. international service and those which dealt with certain specific matters. I am now on what I thought was a rather general criticism of the tone and content of the broadcasts of that service.
The hon. member this afternoon referred to the supervision exercised by the Department of External Affairs over these broadcasting activities. At the same time he stated that in his view these broadcasts should have the purpose of undermining confidence in communism; and I agree entirely with him. In this connection, to show that is the objective which we who have some responsibility for this matter are attempting to achieve, I should like to refer to the policy guidance paper communicated by the Department of External Affairs to the international service of the C.B.C., under which these broadcasts to the behind-the-iron-curtain countries are being operated. I should like to quote a few sentences from this hitherto confidential paper, in order to deal with this point, because I know of no other way of dealing effectively with it than to quote from the policy guidance paper which is supposed to guide the operations of the C.B.C. international service in this field. In this paper it is stated that one of the purposes of these broadcasts is:
Unmasking the hypocrisy of communist democracy in elections, trade unions, labour camps and religion and the hypocrisy of Soviet peace propaganda and its inconsistency in view of Soviet aggressive foreign policy, rearmament and concentration on heavy industry to the detriment of the Soviet standard of living.
That is a quotation from the policy paper. Another one is as follows:
Keeping alive and if possible increasing a knowledge of and appreciation of democracy, the code of ethics which we have derived from Christianity and western civilization and thought.
Those are the general lines along which the international services are proceeding or are attempting to proceed in regard to the broadcasts to the behind-the-iron-curtain countries.

External Affairs
The hon. gentleman raised one or two specific points. I have not had time to look into all aspects of them, but I have had time to look into one or two and I should like to deal with them at this time; I may have an opportunity later to deal with the others. He felt that the C.B.C. international service broadcasts to Italy during the elections were not entirely suitable for the situation which Italy was facing at that time. The elections in Italy to which the hon. gentleman was referring took place, I think, in April, 1948; but the C.B.C. international service did not begin its broadcasts to Italy until December, 1949. And so I am at a loss to know what broadcast-there may have been some-the hon. gentleman was referring to.
I should also like to point out in regard to suspicion which has been attached to certain members in this service that every employee of the international service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is very carefully screened indeed. Mention was made of one employee, I think his name was Mr. Dudak, who was alleged to be a communist. It was stated by the hon. leader of the opposition in regard to this man that he is now engaged with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's international service. I believe Mr. Dudak was an editor of a Slovak newspaper in Canada, a free lance journalist. It is true that he was taken on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's international service for a time. He was investigated immediately after the coup d'etat in Czechoslovakia. My information is that he has ceased to be an employee of the international service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation since April, 1948.
A good many other questions arose during the course of our discussion. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) dealt with the question of the St. Lawrence seaway. He expressed his own anxiety that this seaway should be commenced and brought to completion-an anxiety which we all share. More than one representative of the government has expressed that feeling recently. We want to see this enterprise brought to completion as a power and navigational project by the co-operation of the two governments most concerned; but we want to see it completed. If it cannot be completed on an international basis, naturally we shall have to examine the situation and see what other way it might be done. In discussing this matter the hon. member for Peel asked whether there were any treaty obligations which would prevent our charging discriminatory tolls on nonCanadian vessels as a way to pay the cost of construction of the canal and the power installations, if they were a Canadian enterprise exclusively. There are, Mr. Speaker,

no treaty obligations binding on Canada which would be an obstacle to the imposition of tolls on Canadian canals in the great lakes-St. Lawrence system. There are treaty provisions, however, which affect Canada's ability to establish toll schedules discriminating between ships of Canada and those of another country, or between the ships of different foreign countries; so, as I understand, discriminatory tolls would not be possible.
During our discussion, Mr. Speaker, a good many members of the house made reference to international relief and rehabilitation problems, more particularly with reference to the Colombo plan and to famine assistance for India. I announced in this house not so very long ago that the government would ask parliament to appropriate $25 million as its contribution to the first year of the plan, provided that it was clear that other contributing countries would make appropriate contributions so that the broad objectives of the plan might be realized. Since that time we have been taking steps to make arrangements with recipient countries for the purpose of ensuring that so far as Canada is concerned the momentum of the plan is sustained.
The Colombo report contains in its appendices lists of projects for financing, under the plan; and without waiting for the working out of the details of the plan, indeed without waiting for the plan to come into operation, we have asked the Indian and Pakistan governments to send over technically qualified representatives to discuss with our officials on a bilateral basis the projects in which we might assist, having in mind those items which Canada is best fitted to undertake; and in this connection we are doing all the preparatory work that we can to keep this movement going.
In the broader field of technical assistance we have played, I think, a useful part. We have participated, either through the headship of, or membership in, technical missions, in United Nations missions to Bolivia, Ethiopia, Burma, Colombia, Egypt and India, and the filling of requests for technicians received from Libya, the Philippines, Indonesia and Ceylon under the United Nations program is now currently under consideration; but it is not of course under present circumstances very easy to find suitable Canadian technicians for this purpose.
No technicians have yet been supplied under the Colombo plan, but approximately 50 requests have been received from India, Pakistan and1 Ceylon, and are now being examined by the technical assistance service.

More has been accomplished in making Canadian facilities available for trainees from abroad.
We have notified the bureau on technical co-operation in Colombo that we are prepared to accept twelve trainees from India, ten from Pakistan and six from Ceylon at an early date for placement in the following fields: road building, electrical engineering, pulp and paper, rail transportation and agriculture. The bureau in Colombo is being notified that we will accept three technical missions for a six to eight week tour of Canada during the summer in the field of hydroelectric power, road building and agriculture respectively.
During the February meeting of the commonwealth consultative committee in Colombo the member countries were informed by our delegation that Canada was prepared to grant fellowships to interested recipient countries in such fields as agriculture, engineering, forestry, education and medical research. Subsequently we made a specific offer of sixty scholarships and fellowships to the countries of south and southeast Asia.
Then there is the question which has aroused a good deal of interest in the house of assistance to India to deal with the very distressing and developing famine situation there. So that the facts on this matter might be clear, I should like to put into the record that the Prime Minister of India, Mr. Nehru, announced on May 10 that 50 thousand tons of wheat, purchased on a cash basis from the Soviet union, were on their way to India; 50 thousand tons only, purchased on a cash basis. He added that negotiations for the purchase of an additional 500 thousand tons of other wheat in exchange for certain Indian commodities were in progress. China has sent 50 thousand tons of rice as part of a barter deal, China receiving Indian jute in exchange; and India has also purchased from China 50 thousand tons of milo.
This afternoon reference was made to the United Kingdom contribution. It is true that the United Kingdom agreed to the diversion to India of some cargoes of Australian wheat out of its own purchases in Australia. Some 42 thousand tons of wheat have been so diverted to India and paid for by the Indian government. It was suggested this afternoon that the government were negligent in their appreciation of the terrible famine situation in India. It was suggested by an hon. member of the opposition that we should make a contribution of $100 million for famine relief to be spent in Canada, and that we could do it if we wanted to. Well, Mr. Speaker, we could of course do many things, but it would
External Affairs
be very difficult at this particular moment- and I am not sure that it would be the best way to proceed at this particular moment- to make any such contribution to India for famine relief. Hon. members will recall that the government recognized as long ago as February of this year that a famine in India was likely to occur. At that time we offered wheat to India under the Colombo plan, and the purpose and meaning of that offer has led to some misunderstanding. The only wheat of this year's crop that was not already fully contracted for by purchasers was grade 5. The Indian government advised us last month that it wished to accept our offer of wheat under the Colombo plan but that it preferred to wait until our next crop was harvested before obtaining the wheat in the hope that a better grade would be available.
I should like to assure the House of Commons at this time that the government, as indicated by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) the other day, is giving the closest attention to what Canada can do to ameliorate famine conditions which are rapidly developing in India. We are exploring every avenue, including some of the helpful suggestions which have been made during the course of this discussion, through which help might be given. I am very hopeful that we shall be successful in finding a number of ways in which we can contribute to the relief of starvation and suffering in India.
During the course of our discussion reference has been made by hon. members opposite, and particularly by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, to the negligence of the government in not taking the initiative in attempting to work out a Pacific security pact along the lines of the North Atlantic treaty. I should like to point out that the arrangements which are being negotiated now in the Pacific between Australia, New Zealand, the United States of America and possibly the Philippines do not constitute a Pacific pact of that type, and we have not been asked to participate in those arrangements.


Mr. Green:: Have we asked to be allowed
to participate?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have not asked to be
allowed to participate in this arrangement for reasons I have already indicated in the house. The situation in the Pacific at this time is not exactly the same as that in the Atlantic. It is not the same, in many ways. And the fact that we have participated in the Atlantic pact is no reason that we should take the initiative in working out a Pacific pact at this time. Those who would be

External Affairs
most concerned with that pact do not feel that that would be the best way to proceed. I am thinking of the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia.
They have decided to work out their own arrangements under articles 51 and 52 of the charter of the United Nations, with the object of bringing about a mutual guarantee and security pact. We welcome those arrangements as a furtherance of general security. But I assure members of the house, though no assurance is needed, that this does not mean that we are not alive to the importance of general security in the Pacific. Our participation in the Korean campaign is surely sufficient evidence of that fact.
In this connection-


Howard Charles Green: May I ask a question? Why
does Canada not ask to be allowed to participate in this pact which is being negotiated between the United States, Australia and New Zealand, with possibly the addition of the Philippines?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, we do not ask to
participate in bilateral arrangements between friendly countries. We usually wait for an invitation or we participate, or ask to participate, when our immediate interests are affected. This is a development between the three countries most concerned, but if it should lead into something wider in the Pacific, as I think I have already indicated to the house, we will be most interested in that development.
I do not think in this regard I could do much better than to quote the leader of the opposition this afternoon when he said:
The commitment in Korea refers specifically to Korea and one of the major problems of dealing with the situation there is the fact that no matter how far the same nations might be prepared to go to deal with any act of aggression against any nation in the Pacific ocean or bordering on it, there seems little possibility of any general pact affecting Asia at this time which would create a general commitment in that area such as has been accepted1 in Europe.
Then, if I might deal for a few moments with some more general considerations that have arisen during the course of the discussion, I should like to turn for the moment to the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees), who, in his very interesting statement the other night, reproached the government-and his reproach has been repeated by other members opposite-because they displayed no sense of urgency in the face of the danger of the present position.
Well, all I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that we reject his assertion that the Canadian government has no sense of the urgency of the

present situation. If there were time it would be simple to quote chapter and verses to show that we are aware of that urgency.
I do not think that we need also accept the assertion that the Canadian people are not aware of the seriousness of the situation; and I for one reject the suggestion of the hon. member for Broadview that young Canadians generally are represented by the school boys of whom he spoke the other night, as it is set out at page 2786 of Hansard for May 7, 1951. These are his words:
They were boys who, I imagine, in the United States would have been subject to conscription, so I was interested in ascertaining whether it ever occurred to them to wonder why we were so free from anything of that kind; why they were not only free from conscription but they were even free from any sense of duty toward their country.
Well, I for one do not accept any statement that young Canadians have no sense of duty to their country.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Does the minister think that is quite fair? My whole argument was that they were not being called on to show this feeling.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If that was the meaning of the hon. member, then of course I accept it. But I read his words, and they seemed to have the opposite meaning. He was implying that they were even free from any sense of duty toward their country. That was the conclusion I drew from his words. If it was a wrong conclusion, then I am sorry.


Major James William Coldwell: To whose remarks is the minister referring? Is it the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) or the hon. member for Greenwood. He said "Broadview".


Lester Bowles Pearson: I meant the hon. member for Greenwood.


Mr. Fulion:: That is two mistakes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, I hope I never make any more serious than that. It is difficult to keep up with the hon. member for Greenwood. I thought he was a little over-pessimistic in his remarks the other night. I hope I do not do him an injustice, but I got the feeling that he seemed to take a sort of sad satisfaction out of the misfortunes which face us, and that he was indulging in what the Germans call "schadenfreude."
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, during his remarks he gloomed for some time over a speech I made in Toronto last month. There were remarks made by other hon. members in connection with that speech, and more particularly this afternoon by the leader of the opposition.


George Alexander Drew: That was not the hoop-la speech, was it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: In that gloom the hon. member had some other company also because the hon. member for St. John's West considered it appropriate to say on April 23 last-and I quote from his remarks:
It seems to me that we are copying the bad example of the Russians who, by their brazen, openly aggressive and even insulting tactics, have made diplomacy so difficult today.
Such a comparison, such a statement, indicates that the hon. gentleman does not know very much about Canadian diplomacy. The leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Greenwood did not go so far as that about our diplomacy, but they took an anxious line about this talk of mine and other talks on Canadian-United States relations to which they did me the honour to refer. The hon. member for Greenwood quoted from a couple of Canadian papers to support his words and he suggested, and I am quoting his words, that I left "a rather widespread impression that we in Canada have in fact a lot of grievances and that we feel rather edgy towards the United States of America." He thought that very unfortunate indeed.
The leader of the opposition went further when he spoke on May 1 and again this afternoon. On May 1 he said that concern had been occasioned as to whether we are still operating on a friendly and frank basis with the government of the United States. Hon. gentlemen opposite may rest easy. I think nothing has been said by myself or any other government spokesman which would warrant the concern they have expressed. Our relations with the United States continue to be on a good and friendly basis.
I admit very frankly that the nature and purpose of the statement I made in Toronto have been misunderstood by some critics in the United States who have based their criticism on press stories and on press excerpts from what I said. Other critics, such as the newspapers owned by Colonel McCormick of Chicago, the columnist George Sokolsky and a United States weekly news magazine seem to have read the text all' right but to have drawn unfounded and totally unwarranted conclusions from it.
On the other side were those in both countries who thought that the effect of a frank and friendly analysis of the problem of our new relationship with the United States could only be helpful in the present circumstances. For instance, the Akron Beacon-Herald, was surprised that my Toronto speech had caused criticism. They thought it "gently phrased and friendly" and that it demonstrated "a greater degree of unity between Ottawa and Washington than
External Affairs
exists between the Democratic and Republican parties." The Boston Post concluded that "happily" the speech "stressed the solidarity of the North American neighbours far more than their differences," while the Cleveland Plain Dealer welcomed the Toronto speech as "a sign of common sense and maturity in Canada." The Providence Journal had this to say:
Our good friend to the north has just read us a lesson in maturity that, if taken in the spirit of maturity, should be of compelling benefit all around.
Then finally, just to reassure the hon. gentleman, I could quote from a good many Canadian newspapers in order to match their quotations, but I shall confine myself to quoting just one paragraph from an editorial which appeared in a newspaper with which my hon. friends will be familiar. The Sydney Post-Record had this to say:
External affairs minister L. B. (Mike) Pearson has the support of all Canada in his firm but good-tempered determination to maintain the dignity and prestige of our country in her relations with the United States as well as with all other nations.
Apparently these papers and others did not think, to use the vigorous expression of the hon. member for Greenwood, that in that speech I, and I quote his words, "was banging the United States on the nose." I can assure the leader of the opposition also that in that speech and others I was not speaking from * personal pique. I hope that when I speak as Secretary of State for External Affairs I shall speak as a Canadian anxious that Canada's views should not be misunderstood in these difficult times in international affairs and as a Canadian who sees Canada standing on her own feet but marching in step with her neighbours and her friends, especially the United States and the United Kingdom.
If I had more time I could devote some to the remarks this afternoon of the leader of the opposition about what he called "hoop-la diplomacy" and to which I referred in a speech which I made recently. He was directing my remarks to developments that have taken place recently in the United States. If the leader of the opposition had read my speech and not a newspaper account of the speech into the records of Hansard he might have come to a different conclusion concerning it.
I made that speech, first, some time ago in Toronto and subsequently in Renfrew. When I made the speech in Toronto none of these developments at which he was hinting this afternoon had taken place. I was talking about the difficulties of conducting diplomacy in this television age, and they are very real indeed. To explain those difficulties, to emphasize them and indeed to dramatize

External Affairs
them, I quoted from a paragraph by the columnist, Mr. Walter Lippmann, written some weeks before these events. He was referring to a solution of the Korean conflict by negotiation through the United Nations and he said:
The only hope lay In a quiet, confidential and secret effort to work out political proposals which reflected truly the real balance of military power in the Far East. Nothing so hard and so unglamorous and so unrealistic as that was conceivable if we continued with public diplomacy as it has evolved under the television cameras at Lake Success.
For when statesmen become actors they not only stick to their parts in the show, but, it may be added, they are stuck with their parts. They can be more and more of whatever they have been. But on pain of unpopularity-even it might be of denunciation and Congressional investigation-they cannot appear to be a little bit less.
Thus by the "hoopla" system of diplomacy-which some say is so wonderfully enlightening-every difficult issue, not infrequently a comparatively easy issue, is likely to become insoluble as each actor-statesman rises to such peaks of public righteousness that in public he cannot possibly descend again into commonsense.
Then, there is no hope except to turn off the lights, to shut down the microphones, to take away the stage props, to wash off the make-up, to disperse the crowds, and to let a few men absent themselves from publicity awhile.
That seemed to me to be very sound common sense, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I ventured to quote it in one or two speeches that I have made recently. I agree entirely of course with what the leader of the opposition, has said, that any statement on international affairs at the present time must be made in the light of the effect it will have on what we now oall the -cold war, and how it will be exploited by our enemies in that war. That must be in anybody's mind who makes any public statement at this time. But surely the hon. member will admit that that does not mean that we should not on occasion, -as spokesmen for the Canadian government, speak our minds in a frank and friendly way outlining the issues as we see them and outlining the effect of these issues on our relations with our neighbours and -with our friends.
In this connection I should -like to quote again from the statement of the leader of the opposition this -afternoon -an excerpt which expresses exactly what I have in mind. He said:
I think, Mr. Speaker, that there is much more to fear in the suppression of discussion in the United States, in Canada, in Great Britain or in any other democracy than there is in complete freedom of democracy, so that out of the exchange of ideas and the examination of weaknesses there may be greater strength for the long struggle which lies ahead.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should now like to say a few words about some questions of policy which have come up in the course of this discussion regarding the war in Korea.

I thought that in my earlier statement I had made fairly clear our own understanding of what the policy should be in this conflict, but since there still seems to be some confusion on this -subject I will try to go over that ground again. Let me say at the outset, I may be wrong, but I do not think- having regard to the statements that have been made in this house-that there should be any misunderstanding as to the policy of the government in respect of these matters. I think however that there is real doubt as to what the policy of the official opposition is in this matter because of the apparent differences of view among its individual members.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) insisted the other day that our objective "should be to gain victory in Korea just -as quickly as -possible". To that end he recommended -that enemy bases in Manchuria should be bombed, that a naval blockade should be imposed against communist China, and that the nationalist Chinese forces now on the island of Formosa should be incorporated in the United Nations forces in Korea, or the restriction on their use should be removed.


Howard Charles Green: If I may correct the minister,
I said I did not see why they should not be used in Korea. With regard to the bombing of bases, if the minister will refer to page 2783 of Hansard he will find that I said:
I suggest that we should not tie General Ridgway's hands in dealing with these bases. If it is necessary for him to bomb them in order to win the war, then let him bomb them.


An hon. Member:: What is the difference?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sorry if I misquoted or
misinterpreted what the hon. member said. From his own reading of what he said he would give to the general on the spot the decision as to whether the Manchurian bases -Should or should- not be bombed. I -will let it go at that.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
minister if that was not exactly what he said a few days ago in this house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, it was
not. If the leader of the opposition would read whait I said he would find that I did not say that. Incidentally, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra did -mention in the course -of his very interesting -statement the offer of three divisions of the C-hiang Kai-shek nationalist forces for Korea on July 3. That is on page 2783 of Hansard, and on that page the hon. member said: "The offer was turned down." But he might have added that it was turned down at that time by General MacArthur. When that offer was repeated

in October, and this time with General MacArthur's support and approval, it was again turned down, this time by the United States chiefs of staff.
The proposals which the hon. gentleman and others have made are based on the assumption-and I myself think it is a rash assumption-that action of this kind, limited though it may be, would cause the Chinese communists to withdraw from Korea and presumably sue for peace, without bringing about the intervention in this conflict in the Far East of the U.S.S.R. Those recommendations add up to the policy which has been outlined and recommended in other places. Yet in concluding his speech the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra expressed the hope that the Canadian government would "maintain and strengthen the British commonwealth." Surely it should be well known to him, as it is known to other members of the house, that no single commonwealth government has supported the policy advocated by the hon. gentleman and by certain other people in this country and across the line. Therefore I would suggest to him that if he wishes to maintain his usual consistency he will have to decide whether Canada should follow the policy that he has outlined as against Korea and China or the policy being pursued by the other commonwealth governments in this matter, and indeed by the government of the United States.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister a question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: In what manner does the
minister suggest that victory is to be won in Korea?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a very good question, and I hope I shall be able to come to that before I conclude my remarks. The hon. member seems to me in fact-I hope I am not doing him an injustice-to represent in respect of Far Eastern policy what I might call the more aggressive wing of the official opposition. I am not quite sure how extensive that wing is but it certainly includes the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne).


Howard Charles Green: We do not believe in
appeasement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yet I find it difficult to believe that the views they have presented so cogently in their participation in this discussion enjoy the official endorsement of their party. Certainly the policy in regard to Asia which they recommended that Canada should adopt seems to me at least to differ 80709-192i
External Affairs
very markedly from the milder, and in my opinion much wiser, policy urged by other hon. members of the official opposition, notably the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) and the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). Therefore I think I am entitled to say that I hope we shall soon hear what is the official policy of the official opposition in regard to this very important question.


Howard Charles Green: You tell us how the war is to be won in Korea.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Now, Mr. Speaker, I turn to consider once again what are our objectives in Korea and how those objectives can be reached. I hope that in doing so I shall be able to satisfy the hon. gentleman's curiosity, if not to secure, his approval. A number of members, including the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) and the hon. member for St. John's West, have asked what is the policy of the Canadian government in this matter. In opening this discussion I tried to answer these questions but I am quite happy to try to go over the ground again. I realize that in such a confused situation as does exist in Korea it is difficult to have a clear objective or to see the objective that we have clearly. It is now more important than ever that we should have as exact an idea as possible of what we are trying to accomplish in Korea, along with other members of the United Nations. The Canadian brigade group will shortly be in action, so not only they but every other Canadian will want to know what is their purpose in Korea and what is the policy of the Canadian government in regard to achieving that purpose.
Before I try to answer once again this crucial question, I should like to draw to your attention-this was done I thought very effectively this afternoon by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore)-the advantages which have already accrued' to the cause of freedom from the United Nations action in Korea. In the first place, as was pointed out this afternoon, the military danger to many other areas in Asia has been greatly reduced as a result of the courageous and skilful campaign which has been; carried; on in Korea. Many of the best formations of the Chinese communist army have been committed to battle in Korea and have suffered very heavy losses in the process. As a result, the number of trained troops facing Indochina, Formosa, Hong Kong, Burma and Malaya has been reduced;, and the danger of successful attacks in those areas is now I think less than it was-although of course it has certainly not by any means been eliminated;.

External Affairs
In meeting the onslaught of the Chinese communist forces then, the United Nations forces in Korea have suffered heavy losses but they have inflicted immensely heavier losses on the enemy. They can take pride in the fact that their heroic resistance has lessened the danger in other parts of Asia. I believe that is something that has already been accomplished by way of benefit to the cause of freedom.
Another way in which the cause of freedom has benefited through United Nations action in Korea is that the whole of the free world is now aroused, as was pointed out this afternoon, and alerted to the danger so that more rapid progress is now being made in increasing the armed forces in being in the free world. We have now some reason to believe that before long these forces may be large enough to deter any would-be aggressor. This improvement in our position we owe, I think, largely to the sense of urgency which the war in Korea brought us, and also to the energetic leadership of the United States of America.
This war in Korea has also been the occasion of another discovery which must be encouraging to free men everywhere. It is that collective military action against aggression is possible, and can be effective. It is certainly true even yet that three-quarters of the United Nations forces now fighting in Korea, apart from the South Koreans themselves, are being provided by the United States. But I think equally remarkable is the fact that no fewer than sixteen countries are now contributing contingents to the United Nations forces, and. that all those contingents are being welded together in a strong and dependable United Nations army. It may be objected that all this is very well, but that if the United Nations army in Korea has not a clear mission which it can hope to fulfil, this whole grand exercise in international co-operation is futile. What, then, is the United Nations mission in Korea? Essentially, I think, Mr. Speaker, and I repeat what I said the other day, to defeat aggression,, and by the lesson of that defeat to help prevent the outbreak of world war III,
If the aggression in Korea had been allowed to succeed without any attempt being made to resist it, other acts of aggression would certainly have followed. The strength of the free world would have been nibbled away piecemeal in accordance with the master plans of the Politburo. Eventually, a stage would have been reached when the remaining countries which were still free and independent would have realized that they had either to wage war with fewer resources and with much slighter hope of success, or

else be engulfed under a wave of Soviet tyranny. Since they would certainly have chosen war rather than, slavery, a third world war in those circumstances would have been inevitable.
To the infantryman slogging over the muddy fields of Korea, it may seem odd to hear someone say that his mission is to prevent a third world war. He may well be forgiven for not seeing very much difference between a world war and the bloody business in which he is now engaged. I certainly sympathize with that view. But it is necessary to remember that in the present circumstances a new world war will be very different from the campaign now being fought in Korea. It would be an atomic war which would result in the death of hundreds of thousands of people at one stroke, and which would leave the earth pockmarked and infected with radioactivity for years to come, even if it did not, as is conceivable, result in something far worse. That is the nightmare we are trying by every means in our power to avoid. When viewed in that light I believe that our soldiers in Korea, and the soldiers from other countries of the United Nations, will see that their task, however disagreeable and dangerous it may be, is supremely worthwhile.	[DOT]
Now, Mr. Speaker, exception was taken to my statement of our objectives the other day by the hon. member for St. John's West. He repeated his views this afternoon on my statement that our objective in Korea was to defeat aggression. That statement left him somewhat indignant, and he challenged me to uphold it, that the defeat of armed aggression was the sole military purpose of the United Nations in Korea.


William Joseph Browne: May I
point out that the minister is not really representing what I said. My notes show that the minister has said some people are under the impression that we are fighting in Korea to defeat communism, but that is not correct. We are fighting to defeat aggression. The distinction between what the minister is now saying-


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not know what the hon. member's notes show. I know what is in Hansard, and Hansard is the record of this house. In any event, Mr. Speaker, he did challenge me. He will admit that.


William Joseph Browne: Oh,
certainly.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He challenged me to prove- I think I am right in saying this-that our sole military objective in Korea was the defeat of aggression.


William Joseph Browne: No, that we were not there to defeat communism.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, I am willing to accept that. He challenged me-this is the way he put it and if he looks at Hansard he will change his mind-to justify my statement that our objective in Korea is to defeat aggression, and that is our only objective in Korea. All the hon. gentleman has to do to accept that fact is to read the resolutions of the United Nations which are the sole basis of our operations in Korea. I shall quote the resolution that covers our action there. It is the resolution of June 27, 1950, and it has been accepted by more than fifty members of the United Nations. This is what it says:
The security council recommends that the members of the United Nations furnish such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area.
That is our objective in Korea. Last week General Marshall repeated for his government this same objective when he said:
Our objective in Korea continues to be the defeat of aggression and the restoration of peace.
The hon. gentleman's leader this afternoon in the House of Commons said that it was the result of that decision, the decision of the United Nations relating to the specific action of the United Nations in Korea, which has resulted in Canada's participation in the efforts of the United Nations to preserve the freedom of Korea and deal with this act of naked aggression. That indeed is our objective in Korea. The hon. member would, I think, at least add, if not substitute for that, that our objective in Korea is the defeat of communism by armed force, because we are intervening with armed force in Korea. I say in all sincerity-and I know he will grant my sincerity in this matter-that there is an extremely dangerous confusion here, which should be cleared up, especially as it may be difficult to grasp the reasons for my statement, when Canadian troops are fighting Chinese communists in Korea, when other Canadian troops are being enlisted to stand on guard in western Europe against the threat from Russian communists, and when it is known that these various threats are interlinked and are unleashed or held in check at the orders of the Kremlin.
I admit all that. But as I understand it, communism is a dogma, a type of society and a military danger-all three. The dogma has influenced the type of society which has been created in Russia, in other cominform countries and in China. The totalitarian nature of Soviet society has facilitated and perhaps even necessitated acts of aggression. But communism as a dogma, I repeat once
External Affairs
again, in my view, cannot be destroyed in Korea or elsewhere by military means. If we think it can, and if we think it should be attempted, we should have intervened in Czechoslovakia when the communists took over there. Such armed intervention at that time, however, or in Greece, or in connection with the Berlin blockade, could have and would have received no sanction of any kind from the United Nations. Communism as a dogma must be fought with other weapons and in other ways. But when its noxious doctrines, and when its perverted form of society takes arms and commits aggression against other peoples, then we must answer the communists with collective action including, when it can be made effective, collective military action; and that is what we are doing in Korea today.
What we are fighting in Korea and what we may have to fight in other parts of the world is what William Pitt the younger called "armed opinions", but armed opinions which have expressed themselves in armed aggression. I therefore hope that it will now be understood what I mean when I say that the United Nations' objective in Korea is not, by arms, to fight communism as an idea. Our objective there is to offer successful resistance to communist aggression and thereby to prevent, we hope, a third world war.
To conclude with the point that was raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), what can we do about the present situation in Korea? If we do not adopt additional measures, how can we ever hope to win? At the present time the advantages of two alternative methods are being urged. This is, indeed, the great debate. On the one hand it is said that total military victory is indispensable and that it can be achieved by permitting the bombing of China, by imposing a naval blockade and by employing nationalist Chinese forces outside Formosa. I do not want to repeat at this time why I believe that that policy would be a profound mistake-but I want to state my view that such a policy would not end the war in Korea at this time but might, on the contrary, lead from limited action to unlimited action, the result of which might bring in the U.S.S.R. If it did not, in my view it would almost certainly engulf us in a full continental war with 450 million Chinese people. I cannot myself think that that is the best way of ending the war in Korea. We would be playing for high stakes indeed if we took this kind of limited action in the hope that by such limited action we could end the war in Korea without going on if it did not succeed to unlimited action or without bringing in anyone else.

External Affairs


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister a question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister dispute the fact that his policy means asking Canadian troops to fight in Korea with one hand tied behind their backs?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: What a stupid question!


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not my policy; and certainly it is not the policy of this government or that of any government that I know of that has troops in Korea.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or of the United Nations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And it is not the policy of the United Nations. It may be that, in spite of all our efforts, the catastrophe of a third world war may not be avoided. It may be that, in spite of all our efforts, this conflict will extend to the continent of China. We may not have the control of that extension. But if the conflict is so extended, let the responsibility for the terror, the anguish and the devastation that it will cause rest in other hands than ours.


Howard Charles Green: It is a policy of fear.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is the hon. gentleman's interpretation of it, that it is a policy of fear. As I see it, it is a policy of realism and of peace. What is the alternative policy? It is for the United Nations forces to continue inflicting heavy losses on the aggressors, as they are doing at the present time, and at the same time to avoid any measures which are not absolutely necessary from a military point of view, and which might lead to the spreading of the conflict.
As I said a few days ago in this place, there have been no recent indications that the Chinese communists are in any mood to negotiate. I cannot believe, however, that the Chinese government in Peking can be so blind to Chinese national interests as to continue indefinitely suffering the very heavy losses which are now being inflicted on their forces. So we must hope that a day will come when they will realize that it is not China but Russia which is being served by the aggression in Korea in which they have participated.
If that time comes, they may then be ready to enter into negotiations leading to a settlement in Korea and also to a settlement of other Far Eastern issues. Then, as now, the United Nations will stand ready to

negotiate, as has been made clear many times, and most notably by the general assembly when it approved overwhelmingly the statement of principles drawn up by the United Nations' cease-fire committee. There is, I am afraid, no other answer than this that I can offer to the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), who argued on behalf of his group that the time is opportune now for another attempt to settle the Korean question by negotiation.
No one would be much happier than I if negotiations could be opened tomorrow with a view to reaching an honourable settlement of the war in Korea along the lines suggested by the hon. member himself. But the steps which he proposed-and which he begged me to take up with the United Nations- were very similar to those I outlined when I spoke at the United Nations on January 26 last. There are a few differences in detail, and those differences will, of course, be carefully studied, and will be borne in mind if there ever is an opportunity for negotiation in the near future.
But it is necessary to remember, Mr. Speaker, that all the recent efforts of the United Nations-including this statement of principles to which I have referred-have been, to say the least, rudely rebuffed by the Chinese communist regime. The approaches made by the good offices committee have been rebuffed, and unofficial feelers by individual countries have not been any more successful. The hon. member for Kootenay West suggested that we might propose to the Indian government that they contact the Peking government with a view to entering into negotiations. The Canadian government has kept in constant touch with the Indian government on this question, and the Indian government in its turn has been vigilant in watching for any sign that the Peking regime might be willing to discuss a settlement in Korea and in the Far East generally on any terms that we could even consider. Although it would certainly be improper for me to reveal what the Indian ambassador in Peking has been reporting to his own government, I can say that his inquiries in Peking have not given any grounds for believing that the Chinese communists are yet ready to negotiate on any terms that could conceivably be acceptable to the United Nations. And that is what I meant when I said that for the time being, especially while the Chinese military offensive is going on, it would appear that there are no further steps that could be taken, either by the United Nations collectively, or by any other members individually,

to bring the Chinese communists to the conference table on any conditions that we would consider.
But I should like to assure the house, Mr. Speaker, that the possibility of securing an nonourame settlement by negotiation is never being overlooked by any of the governments, any of the free governments, which are concerned with this matter; we will all continue to search for any indications that the Peking regime may be ready to discuss a settlement, and we will be energetic in taking advantage of any opportunity that we might be able to discover. Meanwhile, however, I can only repe'at what I said the other day, namely, that until we get that indication in some form from Peking, and while the battle is going on, diplomacy must for the time being take a second place to arms. We can only hope that the use of those arms by the United Nations will be so effective and do so much damage to the forces of communist aggression that before long they will see reason. It may then be possible to negotiate with them on United Nations terms, and the danger of a third world war arising in that part of the world will, at least, have been avoided.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege I just want to deal with two matters that were raised, and which I did not wish to pursue at that time so that I would not interrupt the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In the first place I might point out that the Secretary of State for External Affairs repeated several times that I had made certain allegations. If he will check the record he will find that I referred to the fact that certain allegations had been made by responsible individuals, and that I felt an explanation should be given. I repeat that statement, and I do repeat also that they are responsible individuals and that I think they deserve an explanation.
The second matter was in regard to a point that I raised later when I suggested that the possibility of air action against the Manchurian bases to which the hon. minister was referring did not seem inconsistent with what he had said on an earlier occasion. I would refer to what he said on April 26 as reported at page 2397 of Hansard in reply to a question which had been asked him, and these were his words:
However, It is of course possible to visualize a situation where immediate' retaliatory action, without consultation, might be unavoidable in pursuing enemy bombers back to the Manchurian air base from which they came. The decision on the spot to take such immediate retaliatory action would presumably be based on overriding considerations of military security.
Veterans Business and Professional Loans
It was to that statement that I was referring.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act to make the act applicable to a greater number of veterans and to enlarge the period within which guaranteed loans may be made under the act.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the
minister or the parliamentary assistant say a word as to the history of this act?


Mr. James Sinclair (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: I shall be
very glad to say a few words, giving the history of this .act. This resolution introduces a very simple bill to amend the present act and to extend the deadline for the making of loans from January 15, 1952, until January 1, 1955. The act itself is the consequence of recommendations of the veterans affairs committee in 1945. They were considering the veterans charter at that time. The veterans charter, you will recall, provided for cash gratuities to all those who served in the armed forces. It provided for reinstatement in civilian employment to those who had it on enlistment. It provided for re-establishment credits to those who wanted to use extra money for setting themselves up in business or for home furnishings, and also provided for professional and vocational training, and the Veterans Land Act.
The veterans affairs committee found that there was one group who were not provided for, namely, those who wished to use their cash gratuities or their re-establishment credits to go into business for themselves, and they made a recommendation to the house which the government accepted. That provision was made for business and professional loans to veterans. The bill was introduced in 1946, and was based on the same principle as the Farm Improvement Loans Act, which we have already dealt with this session.
The government itself does not make any loans to the veterans, but guarantees loans which are made by the chartered banks, the reason for this being that the ordinary branch managers of the chartered banks of Canada are certainly the best judges of whether or not the enterprise which the veteran was considering launching himself was likely to succeed in the community in which he was situated. The total amount of loans which
3014	HOUSE OF
Veterans Business and Professional Loans were to be guaranteed by the government was $25 million. The terms of guarantee were rather more generous than in the Farm Improvement Loans Act, where the guarantee was up to 10 per cent of the loans made by each bank. In the case of this Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act, the government guaranteed each bank up to 25 per cent of losses on the first million dollars of loans by the bank, and then 15 per cent on loans beyond that, the loans to be made up to $3,000, the veteran being required to have one-third down himself. The interest is 5 per cent simple, and payments were expected not less frequently than quarterly. That maximum time of loan repayment was ten years. There is a schedule of repayment, depending on the size of the loan.
The loans were for a variety of purposes which are detailed in the act. Perhaps hon. members would like to have the same sort of summary put on Hansard as I gave when the Farm Improvement Loans Act was before the house; that is, loans by purposes, loans by provinces and loans by banks. Perhaps I should just read off loans by purposes for the information of hon. members so that they can see the type of thing which money is being loaned for. This is the period January 15, 1947, to December 31, 1950: 1,272 loans were made for the purchases of business to a total amount of $2,800,000; the purchase of interest in a partnership, of capital for a new partnership, 1,393 loans for $2,900,000; purchases of machinery, tools, instruments and other equipment, 1,011 loans for the amount of $1,400,000; repair of machinery, tools, instruments or other equipment, 12 loans for $14,600; construction, repairs or alterations of, or making additions to buildings or structures, 531 loans for $1 million; purchase of motorized units, 932 loans, for $1,200,000; making a total of 5,151 loans for a total amount of $9,424,378.96. If I may have permission of the house I should like to have the next two tables, showing loans by provinces and loans by banks, placed on Hansard, without reading them into the record.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Sinclair: They are as follows:
	No.	Amount
Ontario 			$3,553,780.69
Alberta 			1,800,552.04
British Columbia 			1,437,924.87
Saskatchewan 			904,128.89
Quebec 	 ,		609,463.00
Manitoba 			584,386.36
Nova Scotia 			224,652.73
New Brunswick 			207,809.38
Prince Edward Island 		... 67	89,257.00
Newfoundland 			12,424.00
Total			$9,424,378.96
IMr. Sinclair.]

The Canadian Bank of Commerce	
1,481	$2,692,875.52The Bank of Nova Scotia ...	462	863,129.64The Dominion Bank	
248	432,525.70The Royal Bank of Canada .	1,179	2,116,082.60Bank of Montreal	
1,118	1,996,204.66The Imperial Bank of Canada 268	546.370.54The Bank of Toronto	
301	584,897.30Banque Canadienne Nationale 91	185,723.00The Provincial Bank of Canada	
1	3,000.00Barclays Bank	
2	3,570.00Total	
5,151 $9,424,378.96
I should like now to give a brief summary of the government's position, to date, so far as these loans are concerned. Since the inception of the act on January 15, 1947, to December 31, 1950, veterans received 5,151 loans for a total amount of $9,424,378.96. That is an average of $1,830 per loan. Of the total amount of $9,424,378.96 loaned to veterans since the inception of the act, $6,285,048.78 has been repaid. Roughly two-thirds of the loans made in this period have already been repaid.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is that up to schedule? Does that practically fulfil the requirements?


James Sinclair: The best indication of that, perhaps, is the losses. Up until now there have been 102 claims totalling $109,127.77, or roughly $1,000 each for those 102 claims, upon which the banks have asked the government to make good the losses.
The government's contingent liability at the present time under the 25 per cent guarantee is $1,404,808.03. Under the 15 per cent guarantee, for loans in excess of the first million dollars, the amount is $570,775.73. Loans outstanding at the present time total $3,139,330.18.
The amending bill is a very simple one, in which three things are done. First of all there is the intention to extend the deadline from January 15, 1952, to January 1, 1955. The second point is to include in the provisions respecting those who may apply for loans, veterans who have applied for and perhaps received benefits under the Veterans Land Act, but who have paid back those benefits. The original act said that any veteran in receipt of a war service gratuity could apply for such a loan, except those who have received assistance under the Veterans Land Act. This latter group could apply under the Farm Improvement Loans Act for further loans, if necessary.
The third minor change is to change the provision for the security of the loans so that it will be the same as the security provisions under the Farm Improvement Loans Act.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Are applications still coming in freely?


James Sinclair: Applications have fallen off, as might have been expected. The main rush was in the two years immediately after the war. But last year, for example, there were four hundred odd applications made. The minister intends to refer the bill to the committee on veterans affairs, as soon as it is given second reading.


Mr. Cardiff:: Does the veteran who had a
loan before and who paid up his obligation have a certain advantage?


James Sinclair: No, that is not quite right.
The original qualification for a loan was that a man should be a veteran in receipt of gratuity, but not in receipt of any benefit under the Veterans Land Act. If a veteran had applied for a loan under the Veterans Land Act, and then decided he did not want to go in for farming and paid back the loan he had received under the Veterans Land Act, he can now make application for a business loan, if he wishes to launch a business.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Might not
that principle apply to the case mentioned by the hon. member for Huron North? If a veteran had had a loan, and paid it off, why could he not get another loan under this act?


James Sinclair: There is no reason at all
under the act why that can not be done.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Oh, I misunderstood.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant a question about the figures he gave in his introductory statement. I think he said that there had been a record of failures in the repayment of loans numbering only 102 thus far. I would understand that the banks have made application to the government to make good on the guarantee. I believe the parliamentary assistant said the total amount wias $109,000. Is that the amount the banks are actually asking the government to pay, or is that the total of loans upon which there have been defaults, and concerning which the government's obligation will not exceed 25 per cent of the amount?


James Sinclair: No; those are the losses the
government actually has made good. It is not 25 per cent of any individual loans. It is 25 per cent of loans made up to the first million dollars. Then it is 15 per cent beyond that.
Veterans Business and Professional Loans
To put it on another basis, the cost of the program to the government has been about $20 per loan because, from the figures I gave, we have made over 5,000 loans, and we have lost $109,000.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps I did not understand the point correctly, but it is my understanding that the government is not liable for only 25 per cent of a loan, If a bank has made loans of $1 million, and there is default in respect of a loan of $3,000, the government must pay the whole $3,000?


James Sinclair: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then, another question: If
a veteran borrowed money under the act and repaid it on schedule to the bank, is he then debarred from getting the benefit under the Veterans Land Act? The parliamentary assistant said he could get another loan. Does he have the option to switch and get the benefits of the Veterans Land Act, if he has paid up in full?


James Sinclair: That is a question for the
Minister of Veterans Affairs. The only qualification we in the Department of Finance have is that a veteran who is receiving benefits under the Veterans Land Act cannot qualify for a business loan.


Mr. Herridge:: I am pleased to see this
resolution introduced. I am sure the parliamentary assistant will agree that this was considered experimental legislation in 1945. There is no doubt it has been helpful to many veterans. I know of a number of veterans in my own constituency who have taken advantage of the act, and it has assisted them in re-establishment.
I am pleased to see an extension of the period in which the application can be made. Apparently the losses to date have been relatively light. How do they compare with the losses experienced by banks who make loans to civilians under normal conditions?


James Sinclair: I would say offhand they are very much higher. They are over five times the amount of losses under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. Naturally a young veteran launching out into business is not as good a risk as an established farmer would be. That was why the government guaranteed 25 per cent on the first million of loans by each bank in this case, whereas we guaranteed only 10 per cent in respect of farmers under the Farm Improvement Loans Act.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Have representations been
made asking that the amount permitted to each veteran be increased? If so, what consideration was given and what decision was arrived at? It is represented to us from time
80709-11)3
3016	HOUSE OF
Veterans Business and Professional Loans to time that, with the increases in the cost of machinery, and in the prices of things the veteran will need in business, as in the case of the Veterans Land Act, the initial maximum loan which may have been adequate at the time it was first asked for is no longer adequate to give the veteran a chance to make a good start. What is the situation there?


James Sinclair: A similar type of question was asked in connection with farm improvement loans. The same director in our department supervises the two types of loans, and he said there had been no* representations, to his knowledge, for an increased ceiling. The fact that the average loan is about $1,800 is one indication.


Howard Charles Green: Did the parliamentary assistant say $1,800?


James Sinclair: Yes, $1,830. A veteran would have to have $1,500 in cash to get a $3,000 loan which, in itself, is a fair deterrent to the young veteran who is starting up in business for himself. But that, again, can be discussed at length when we have the administrator before us on the committee on veterans affairs.


Mr. Johnston:: I have not followed this too closely, but I understand that the lending company will not suffer a loss until the total losses have exceeded $250,000?


James Sinclair: Quite right.


Charles Edward Johnston: I understand that the government assumes all losses up to that point. Have the lending companies suffered any losses under this legislation?


James Sinclair: In order to suffer a loss a bank must lose more than $250,000. Since the total losses of all banks combined have been only $109,000 no bank has reached the $250,000 limit at which its losses would start. The whole intent of the government guarantee was to use the business ability and knowledge of the managers of the chartered banks across Canada who could assess the business risk. Under this guarantee the banks could extend much more generous credit than they normally would, and at a five per cent rate.


Charles Edward Johnston: Twenty-five per cent of the loss is rather high and the fact that it is high might cause the banks to be a little less discreet when paying out money. They would not care whether it was lost or not.


James Sinclair: I think that was the hope of the veterans affairs committee.


Charles Edward Johnston: It could be tightened up so that a veteran would not have a chance under this legislation, but it seems to me that when


you guarantee 25 per cent you are making it impossible for the other fellow to lose anything.


James Sinclair: The fact that $9 million in loans have been made so far with losses of only $109,000 is an indication that the banks are not giving away money. I was a member of the veterans affairs committee which made this recommendation and I remember one of the things we were most keen about was to make sure that there would be such underwriting that the banks would be much more generous in making loans than they ordinarily would be. I remember also when the Farm Improvement Loans Act was before us there was a call from hon. members for a more generous guarantee than the ten per cent guarantee under that act so that the banks might be still more generous.


Mr. Wright:: Does the department receive from the banks or the lending institutions returns which would indicate the number of veterans who had applied for loans and been refused?


James Sinclair: The same problem was raised in connection with the Farm Improvement Loans Act. We have only two ways of judging. One is by letters from veterans to the *Minister of Finance or to the administrator stating that they have been refused. Those have been few in number. An even better indication is given by members of parliament. In the last four years very few hon. members have made complaints that veteran constituents have been refused loans. This indicates the judgment used by the local bank managers. There is nothing that permits the Department of Finance to force a bank manager to make a loan. But the fact that the guarantee is as generous as it is gives the bank a fairly wide discretion.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It would appear as though the legislation had been successful. On the one hand, as the parliamentary assistant points out, there have been few complaints and, on the other hand, a substantial amount of business has been done with the losses fairly moderate. When it was stated that the cost had been $20 per loan, was that based on the losses only or did it include administrative costs?


James Sinclair: I was speaking very generally. The actual loss to the government as far as the guarantee is concerned is about that amount. The administrative cost is quite small. There is a total staff of 16 which handles the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act. That could be brought up when we are in committee.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I realize that we shall have full opportunity to ask questions when the bill is before the committee, but I do want to state now that I have personal knowledge that there was some dissatisfaction in the early months after this legislation became effective. There appeared to be some misunderstanding on the part of local bank managers, but since that time I have not heard of any dissatisfaction. When we consider the purposes of the act and the circumstances under which it is used I consider it has been most satisfactory.


Howard Charles Green: Will there be an amendment to the act so that it will apply to men serving in the special force?


James Sinclair: The fact that it is being extended to 1955 would indicate that to my mind. This is getting into the field of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I am dealing with the financial aspects. I am quite sure that when the bill is before the veterans affairs committee hon. members will be able to question the minister or the parliamentary assistant as to that.


Howard Charles Green: The intention is to make its benefits available to men serving in the special force?	[DOT]


James Sinclair: I cannot say that. That would have to be stated by the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


The Deputy Chairman:: If that question is not within the scope of this resolution perhaps it should not be asked at this time.


Howard Charles Green: Surely it is within the scope of the resolution. That is what we want to find out, whether the legislation to follow this resolution will apply to men serving in the special force. Surely I am in order in asking that question.


Mr. Lapointe:: Perhaps the hon. member would agree to wait until we are discussing the resolution which is to follow this one, and which deals with benefits to be given to members of the special force. At that time I shall be able to explain just what is being done in connection with the different pieces of legislation which form the veterans charter, part of which we intend to make applicable to the members of the Korean force.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: On a quick look at the present resolution I do not think it would include them as it now stands.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The resolution states that it
is intended to amend the act to make it applicable to a greater number of veterans, and that I think raises the question whether or not veterans of the Korean force would 80709-193J
Veterans Business and Professional Loans be entitled to benefits under this act. Perhaps it can be left until we are dealing with the next resolution, but I think the question should be answered at some stage.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I might state to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra that I did not rule out his question. I was merely asking if it was within the scope of the resolution. The Minister of Veterans Affairs has given a reply which may or may not be satisfactory.


Howard Charles Green: I cannot tell from the reply
whether it is satisfactory or not. I cannot understand why the minister is not able to say whether this legislation is to be made applicable to the men serving in the special force.


Hugues Lapointe: Surely I cannot be asked to deal with a bill which has not yet been distributed to the house and which is being brought into the house by a department other than my own.


Howard Charles Green: I am not asking about something contained in another bill; I am asking whether the benefits under this particular measure are going to be available to the men serving in the special force. I submit that the Minister of Veterans Affairs should be able to answer that question.


Hugues Lapointe: My answer would be that it cannot be made applicable to members of the Korean forces without an amendment to the present legislation which can be made only after the other resolution on the order paper is passed. Perhaps the hon. member will permit me to explain when that resolution is before us what it is intended to do.


Mr. Fair:: I wonder if we have any lawyers in the house? That question arises because of the discussion we have had on both sides.


Howard Charles Green: Has there been any consideration given to extending this act to the case where a veteran buys an interest in an incorporated company? As I remember it, when the act was originally passed there was no provision made for a loan under circumstances of that kind. The veteran could only get a loan if he was going into a partnership as distinct from an incorporated company. Has any consideration been given to making a change to make it possible for a man to get a loan in order to buy into a company?


James Sinclair: There was a very long discussion of this matter before the veterans affairs committee in 1945. The objection was that if the veteran was a minority shareholder in an incorporated company he would have no control over the business operation, nor would the bank, and that the banks

Special Force Veterans themselves would not make loans under such circumstances. That was the stumbling block, and as far as I know no further consideration has been given. When the matter is before the veterans affairs committee the director of the branch can give evidence on that point. This act has worked very well in the case of the individual veteran establishing himself in his own business or in a partnership where of course he has a measure of control.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred' in.
Mr. Lapointe (for Mr. Abbott) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 286, to amend the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a second time?


James Sinclair: If it could be read a second time now we would refer it to the veterans affairs committee immediately.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By leave of the house.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.



SPECIAL FORCE VETERANS


Hugues Lapointe: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to make certain rights, privileges and benefits applicable to persons serving in that part of the armed forces of Canada designated as the special force and to certain other members of the Canadian forces.


Mr. While (Haslings-Pelerborough):: Is
the minister going to make a statement?


Mr. Lapoinle:: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that on April 4, when I introduced the resolution to set up the veterans affairs committee, I referred in my statement to a bill that would be sent to that committee to provide certain benefits for the members of the special forces. It will be remembered that section 7 of the Canadian Forces Act, which section expires at the end of this session, authorizes the governor in council to designate certain forces as special forces and to extend to them such benefits of the veterans charter as might be found appropriate. The present resolution envisages legislation along these lines. It will make

provision for the extension of certain benefits to the members of the special forces, to persons enrolled for service, and to men and officers who have become members of the Canadian forces for a term not exceeding three years.
In addition it is proposed to provide authority for the governor in council to extend all the benefits of the veterans charter to all persons who, subsequent to July, 1950, were on service in a theatre of operations with the Canadian forces. As I said, this resolution refers to certain benefits which were made available to the members of the forces of world war II. After that war, as hon. members will recall, there was a certain relationship between the benefits given to those members of the forces who had served overseas and the benefits given to those who had served in Canada only. It will be realized, I am sure, that it is very difficult in this uneasy period of half war and half peace to determine just what this relationship should be at the present time.
The bulk of the men in the armed forces are serving under regular engagement, and only a portion of them are members of the special force and are enlisted as such. Rates of pay and other factors have changed, and all these things make it undesirable in the view of the government to legislate finally at this time for the general re-establishment of the veterans to be of what we now call the special force, and those others who might be called upon to serve outside Canada. As hon. members know, while some members of the special force are at the present time in action fighting in Korea and others will be joining them in a very short time indeed to participate with them in action in that field, others have not yet served overseas, and in fact some of them are not likely to do so.
However, I am sure that it will be the feeling of the house that when the men who have been in action or have served overseas in a manner comparable to the veterans of world war II are discharged from the services they should be granted the benefits of the veterans charter which apply to their particular service. The benefits required to date for the re-establishment in civil life of members of the special force so far discharged have been made available by order in council by virtue of section 7 of the Canadian Forces Act, to which I referred at the beginning of my statement. It is the intention to confirm those benefits by the legislation which will follow this resolution.
There are, however, other benefits of the veterans charter, especially the War Service Grants Act, the Veterans Land Act, and the

training sections of the Veterans Rehabilitation Act, which have not yet been made applicable for the reason that the problem has still to be met. Here I might try to answer the question which the hon. member ior Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) raised a few minutes ago. The way we are proceeding is similar to the course followed during world war II. We have set up a committee with representatives of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of National Defence and Department of Labour. At the present time we are going through the whole of the veterans charter in order to determine the manner in which the provisions of that charter can be made applicable to the veterans of the special force. I believe all hon. members will recall that was the way it was done during the last war. In fact, by the time the war was concluded, I believe there were sixty-nine or eighty-nine orders in council covering the bulk of the veterans legislation, which were afterwards incorporated in statutory form.
At the present time this committee is going through this legislation, particularly with regard to the rehabilitation part of the legislation to which my hon. friend referred. It must be realized that although it is quite easy to make some of the provisions of this charter applicable to members of the forces, such as the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, and the Pension Act, there are other provisions which need special examination and investigation. For instance in the case of the Veterans Land Act a question will arise in connection with a veteran who has already received benefits under that act. If he is discharged after two or three years' service we shall then have to decide to what other benefits he could be entitled under the Veterans Land Act. Similarly, if that veteran is a man who has received training under the rehabilitation program following world war II, has become a medical man, served in the special force and is then discharged after two or three years' service, a question will arise as to what benefits he will be entitled to for professional training. Such a man may decide he no longer likes the medical profession but would prefer to become an architect, and whether he would be entitled to further training under the act is a question to be decided. For that reason we are now examining the whole of the veterans charter to make it applicable to the special force veterans.
As I mentioned, some of these benefits have already been extended to them.
Special Force Veterans


Percy Ellis Wright: Could the minister list those benefits that have been extended?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes, that is what I intend to do. Legislation which will follow this resolution will incorporate for the members of the special force the terms of the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, by virtue of which a veteran who has worked for three months for an employer before his enlistment may claim his job within three months after his discharge. It is exactly the same as the legislation which existed after world war II, and which proved to be so beneficial. As a matter of record, I believe there were not more than two or three prosecutions under that act throughout the whole country. This was due to the co-operation of employers, and I have no doubt that in the present emergency employers will co-operate as well as they did after world war II.
We have extended the Unemployment Insurance Act to cover these veterans. Hon. members will recall that following world war II provisions were made to pay what was called an out-of-work allowance. Experience taught us that the efficient administration of this out-of-work allowance was dependent upon the use of the unemployment insurance commission machinery, and the employment service provided under that commission. It has been thought that it would be more beneficial for the veteran himself if we were to extend to him the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Contrary to what has been stated, these benefits have been extended to a special force veteran who has served for three months, for which service he can claim a minimum of fifteen weeks' benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Of course a longer period of service, and the fact that he may have been in an insurable position previous to enlistment, would extend the period of time for which he is entitled to draw unemployment insurance.
We have, by order in council, extended the benefits of the Pension Act under the same conditions generally as now apply to world war II veterans. This means that pensions will be payable for any disability or aggravation of a disability, or for death arising during or as a result of service. As in the case of world war II veterans, the insurance principle applies.


Howard Charles Green: Even to those who only serve in Canada?


Hugues Lapointe: Members of the special force, yes.
One further group to receive assistance under the provisions of this legislation will be those who come under the Civil Service
3020	HOUSE OF
Special Force Veterans Superannuation Act. It will mean that a permanent civil servant who is given leave of absence to enlist in the special force will have his seniority protected and superannuation payments made on his behalf, the same as was done during world war II.
There is one further item of protection which does not appear in any act to which I might refer. It appears under the regulations made under the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, and relates to post-discharge medical treatment. Through an order in council amending medical treatment regulations, members of the special force have been placed in the same position in regard to post-discharge medical treatment as were the veterans of world war II. For this purpose we have revived treatments under class II and class III. Hon. members will recall that class II treatment covers the care of those discharged from the forces who need continuing treatment. This is provided as of right, and while under treatment the veteran receives pay and allowances identical with those he received during his service in the special force. Class III provides free treatment for any condition during the twelve months following discharge, and that is similar to a provision which existed for world war II veterans. Hospital allowances are paid during the period of this treatment for a time equal to the length of service up to a maximum of one year. Those receiving disability pensions as a result of their service in the special force will, of course, be entitled to treatment for their pensionable disability as of right; and others who served in a theatre of actual war are eligible to apply for treatment for any other condition if they are unable to provide treatment for themselves. That is what existed for world war II veterans. I do not think there is any more that I wish to add at this stage, Mr. Speaker. It is, of course, the intention to refer the bill to the veterans affairs committee for study.


George Stanley White: Did I
understand the minister to say that he expected or hoped that all the benefits of the veterans charter would at some time' be extended to the special force?


Hugues Lapointe: I am sorry, but I was not able to follow that question.


George Stanley White: I was
not quite clear as to what the minister said.
I understood him to say that it was expected or hoped that all the benefits under what we now call the veterans charter will at some date be extended to the veterans of the special force. Did I hear that correctly?


Hugues Lapointe: I think what I said was that I was sure it would be the feeling of this house that the men who have seen action and served overseas, in a way comparable to world war II veterans, would have extended to them the benefits which were extended to world war II veterans.


George Stanley White: Then I should like to ask the minister if it is correct that the bill which he will introduce following this resolution will really cover only minor benefits such as civil reinstatement in employment, unemployment insurance, the benefits of the Pension Act which they would automatically get, and the same benefits that would accrue to anyone in the civil service. Surely the minister must feel that that is hardly sufficient at the present time, because injured boys will be coming back from Korea, and they will be discharged, and if those are the only benefits that they will be eligible to receive-


Mr. Lesage:: We are not in committee. If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps it would be better to go into committee; then hon. members may ask questions and receive answers.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


George Stanley White: Perhaps the minister can answer my question now.


Hugues Lapointe: As I explained earlier, Mr. Chairman, in drafting this benefits legislation for veterans of the special force, we are following the same course which was followed during the last war. As we will be incorporating some of these benefits, in a definite fashion, in a statute which will follow, we are asking to be authorized to make applicable by order in council the balance of the legislation which is included in a schedule. The bill includes the schedule in which is mentioned all the veterans legislation which is not incorporated in the act itself. We are asking authority, by order in council, to make applicable to the members of the special force such of this legislation included in the schedule as is found to be appropriate now. Furthermore, as I mentioned previously, we have this committee sitting continuously; and at the present time it is looking into the legislation pertaining to rehabilitation particularly. As the committee draws conclusions and makes recommendations the government, by order in council, under the authority which we are seeking under this resolution, can extend these benefits. I think that is the manner

in which the government proceeded during the last war. It permitted a flexible procedure as cases arose and circumstances changed. As soon as any of these orders in council have oeen made applicable, in a subsequent session they will be incorporated into statutes, in accordance with the procedure that was followed during the last war. I do not know whether or not I have answered my hon. friend's question.


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister has stated, if I understood him aright, that there is now an order in council which protects, with regard to reinstatement in civil employment, the men going into the special force.


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: That is correct.


Percy Ellis Wright: There are two questions I should like to ask. The first is this. Does that protection extend to their pension rights in the employment they are now in? Are those pension rights protected, so that they do not lose anything? They might be re-employed but they might lose their pension rights. Does the reinstatement in civil employment include protection of the pension rights? The second question is this. Does this order in council apply to the men who are now being called to enlist in the force for Europe? Is that considered as part of the special force, and will this legislation or any part of it cover the men who are enlisting in the special force for Europe?


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: The terms of the order in council extending the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act to those people simply makes applicable to the special force the act as it is now in the statutes. I should not like to make a definite statement, but I am not aware whether it covers pension rights that might have been acquired in previous employment. I shall have to find that out. I am sure that in committee I shall be able to give my hon. friend the answer to that question. But reinstatement in civil employment is being extended to those who are now enlisting in this second Canadian brigade which is being formed.


Percy Ellis Wright: What other provisions are, by order in council, provided for the men now enlisting in the European force?


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: At the present time there is that provision for reinstatement in civil employment; the unemployment insurance benefits, which I explained exist for the special force, will be extended to them. The provisions of the Pension Act will be extended to them, to the appropriate degree; but I am not aware of any new order in council. As my hon. friend knows, this new brigade just began to be recruited eight days ago; and we are working on that matter at the
Special Force Veterans present time in this committee to which I have made reference. I am sure that I shall be able to make an announcement shortly with regard to further extension of benefits to these people and to members of the special force.


Robert Fair: Will legislation be introduced to make the benefits under the Veterans Land Act available to members of the special force that is being recruited now for service in Europe, and also the benefits of the War Veterans Allowance Act?


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: I seem always to be giving the same answer. I mentioned before that the Veterans Land Act was one part of the whole veterans legislation which was being looked into at the present time in order to find out in what manner it should be made available to members of the special force. There would be no difficulty for a veteran who has not yet benefited from the Veterans Land Act, but we know there are some who are serving in the special force at the present time and who are beneficiaries under the act, who obtained leave from the department, left their farms, and who are serving now. They possibly will have acquired certain rights by the time they are discharged. In what manner will you permit them to apply these rights to their property that they have now under the Veterans Land Act? Would you permit them to credit certain amounts to their account, or would you give them a further extension on their property? That is something that is being looked into now. I am quite sure I shall be able to give a more satisfactory answer to my hon. friend before very long.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: When we were discussing the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act the minister was going to explain whether, as the act is now set up, if one had a loan under that act and had paid it in full, he would be eligible to benefit under the Veterans Land Act. Even that pertains to the soldiers of the other wars, without these complications of the new service.


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: If the War Service Grants Act is extended to the members of the special force it would be logical to extend the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act also.


James Arthur Ross: Is it the intention of
the government to extend1 that?


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: Well, we are looking into it now. Certainly some parts of it will be extended. Whether it will be extended as the legislation exists in its entirety, or whether changes will be made, is something we cannot say now, but it will be extended.

Special Force Veterans


James Arthur Ross: Even without extending it, it was not just clear as to the soldier of the last great war. If he had a loan under this Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act and repaid it all, would he then he entitled to the benefits under the Veterans Land Act? If we had that clear then we could carry on and see what would happen with the new force.


Hugues Lapointe: I would think, Mr. Chairman, that if he is otherwise qualified for benefits under the Veterans Land Act he could make use of that, having reimbursed the loan under the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act.


James Arthur Ross: At this stage this whole scheme seems to me pretty much narrowed. Nothing is very clearly set forth as to just what benefits these men of the special force will receive under the veterans charter. That is just in the process of study by this committee, if I understand the minister.


Hugues Lapointe: That is right.


James Arthur Ross: This has to do with the new force. As I understand it the terms of reference of this committee are not broad enough to go into any other legislation such as the War Veterans Allowance Act, and things of that nature.


Mr. Mutch:: So far as the bill about to be introduced is concerned, what it does in fact is to make into a statute the four orders in council which have been passed pursuant to the legislation of the short session last August, and to extend the power by statute for a further extension by order in council of all or any of the benefits of the veterans charter as they should become applicable .to the veterans of the Korean special force. There is no limitation on the extending of the benefits of the veterans charter proposed in the act. What it does do is to provide for the orderly application of the legislation of the veterans charter as the need becomes apparent. For instance, hon. gentlemen will realize that at the moment there is a relatively small pressure for a decision in the matter of rehabilitation legislation, since scarcely any except those who have become injured and perhaps pensionable are now going back into civil life under disability pension. There is a provision made by order in council to extend training to them now. That was done last week. As these various pieces of legislation become applicable to the applicants of today, the power will be taken in the bill, which is to be put before the house, and then referred to the committee, to secure the orderly application of each and any of these benefits as they may be required. We are at the beginning of a war
[Mr. Lapointe.)
now. Hon. members will recall that, in spite of the work done during world war II, it was almost two years after the cessation of hostilities before we could tailor the old legislation, plus about 80 orders in council, to fit the need of that day, and we cannot be sure at this time that the legislation of the veterans charter, as it exists at the present time, will exactly accomplish the will of the people for those other boys. This is just being left for the advice of the interdepartmental committee and an opportunity will be given for our own committee to give their advice, when this bill is introduced to them, to tailor it to do the job. Provisions are in the bill to provide for that.


James Arthur Ross: Following that up-perhaps the minister may have said this, but I did not get it clearly-I presume it will be the intention to set up a veterans affairs committee at the next session to continue its study.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: We have not finished with this one yet.


James Arthur Ross: I do not think it is nearly broad enough. I do not think the terms of reference of this committee are broad enough, and. the membership of the committee is not as large as those of other sessions. The terms of reference are very much narrower than those of other veterans committees. Because of that there is a fear as to what we may expect it to bring forth in the interest of these boys. It is very important that the thing should be broadened and a wider study given to all of these benefits. To me it is a narrow set-up right now.


Howard Charles Green: May I point out to the com-rriittee that in the advertisements requesting enlistment in the Canadian special force last summer it was very clearly set out that all these men who enlisted would get the full benefits of the veterans charter. I do not believe that that can be contradicted. These men have gone into the army believing that they would get all the benefits of the veterans charter. I do not know whether similar terms were used in the advertisements for the European brigade or not. I presume that the intention was the same.
It is important that we start out by keeping faith right up to the hilt with these men who enlist in either of these forces. I suggest the Department of Veterans Affairs should be very careful to see that that undertaking is carried out without any delay and without any question. I think the statements of the minister and his assistant may be summed up as indicating that some benefits will be given but there still must be consideration given to the various amendments that are needed in

the legislation; and that nothing in a statutory form can be passed; now; we must wait; that it took several years during the last war, and so on and so forth. The result of this policy is pretty clearly indicated, I am afraid, I,: a dispatch contained in the press just eleven days ago. I hold in my hand a dispatch from the Vancouver Sun of May 3. It is headed: "No benefits; way to civvy street unpaved for war veterans", and it continues:
Korean brigade soldiers found this week the road back to civvy street hasn't yet been paved.
There are as yet no re-establishment credits, educational grants, Veterans Land Act, debarkation leave or clothing allowances for men discharged from the special force.
Only unemployment insurance benefits are available and these only to men with over nine months service-


Hugues Lapointe: That is not right.


Howard Charles Green: That may be wrong. What is the proper time?


Hugues Lapointe: Three months' service.


Howard Charles Green: I continue:
Only unemployment insurance benefits are available and these only to men with over nine months service-which tew men of the brigade can yet claim.
A few medical discharge cases now being "processed out" at Jericho army base get their pay, but nothing more.
"If a man declares himself destitute he may get a $30 voucher to obtain clothing, but this is supposed to be deducted from the army pay owing to him," an army spokesman explained today.
Discharge of men of the special force was being handled in "exactly the same way as we deal with regular active force discharges."
In other words, in the same way that men who had enlisted three or four years ago with the Canadian active army are dealt with. It continues:
Department of Veterans Affairs officials said Ottawa is now considering what reestablishment credits will be made available to veterans of the new war.
"So far we have no directive for aiding these men to re-establish themselves in civilian life," said a spokesman. "Until parliament decides what benefits are to be made available there's no point in the Korean ex-servicemen even applying to us."
We all know that hundreds of men have been discharged from that special service force. Perhaps the figure runs into thousands. I do urge upon the minister that steps be taken to see that the undertaking given to these men is lived up to fully-in other words that they get the same gratuities, the same educational rights, the same rights under the Veterans Land Act and under the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act, and the other legislation included in the veterans charter.
I realize it may be difficult to provide for that by statute at the present time. I can quite understand the difficulty of making
Special Force Veterans statutory provisions. But let it be done by order in council-although I do not have much use for that kind of legislation.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: The bill seeks that power.


Howard Charles Green: I am not satisfied, from what has been said this evening, that the intention is to give these men the same benefits that the men in the second world war received. I do not believe the Department of Veterans Affairs has fully realized what a definite undertaking was given in asking these men to enlist.
Time means a lot; some of these men now have been eight or nine months in the special force, and require help when they are discharged. I do hope it will be possible to see that they will get all these benefits upon discharge, without having to wait around for a matter of months or longer than that.
Unemployment insurance is quite different from a gratuity. The gratuity is payable whether they are working or not, while unemployment insurance covers them only if they are out of work. That was not meant to be one of the main benefits under the veterans charter; it was only a supplementary benefit.
All these other veterans charter benefits should be extended to these men without further delay.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the resolution carry?


Howard Charles Green: Could I have an answer from the minister as to whether it is the intention that these men will get now the benefits they would have received under the veterans charter after the last war?


Hugues Lapointe: I do not think I can at this time say definitely to what degree any benefits will be extended to these men. That is why we are proceeding in this way-because we have found through experience of the last war that it was the most practical way to proceed, and the one from which the veterans benefited most.
I think that is the course of wisdom on our part. The hon. member referred to commitments made when the special force was recruited. I think if he will look at the terms of the advertising, the wording of that advertising, he will find that it refers to veterans benefits and to reinstatement in civil employment.


Howard Charles Green: How does it read?


Hugues Lapointe: "And other appropriate
benefits under the veterans charter, as extended by parliament". I believe that is what it says. That is what we are going to

Special Force Veterans do, and what we are in the process of doing at the present time. As I have told other hon. members, I hope within a short time to make a further announcement respecting the extension of certain of the benefits to the members of the special force, as we find them applicable and appropriate for their rehabilitation to civilian life.


Howard Charles Green: Are the benefits to apply also to the men who have not been able to go abroad with the special force?


Hugues Lapointe: This bill provides for members of the special force, and certain other groups.


Howard Charles Green: Will it apply, even if they have not served overseas?


Hugues Lapointe: I am not in a position to say that. In fact, I do not personally know what the terms of enlistment of these men are, because that is the responsibility of the Department of National Defence.
I am asking for the extension of benefits to members of the special force. But I did say, if the hon. member will recall, that I was sure it was the hope of every member of the house that when any of these members of the force shall have served or have been in action, or have served overseas under conditions comparable to those under which veterans of world war II served, they will be given the same benefits as would have applied to veterans of the second world war.


Howard Charles Green: Benefits were also given to the men who served only in Canada. Is that to be true in respect of these men?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: The insurance principle is already incorporated in the pensions.


Howard Charles Green: I am asking if that is to be true of the men who enlisted in the special force?
IAt. Lapointe: I did say at the beginning of my statement that at the end of the last war there was a certain relationship between the benefits to veterans who had served overseas and those who had served in Canada only. At the present time, in the present state of the world, and the conditions under which these men are enlisting, it is impossible -perhaps I should not say "impossible", but it is undesirable to determine right now what will be the benefits to be given to men whose conditions of service we do not know as yet.
We know in respect of some that they are fighting in Korea, and it is the intention to extend to them all the benefits given to world war II veterans. But we do not know what will be the conditions with reference to other members of the forces because, as I did mention, the bulk of the armed forces


at the present time are under regular engagement.


Mr. Gillis:: I do not wish to open up a discussion. I am a member of the veterans affairs committee. The executive heads of the Legion will be meeting with that committee on Thursday of this week. It was my hope that all the bills with respect to veterans might be turned over to the committee as quickly as possible so that the executive heads of the Legion may be able to see them and have a look at them. In this way they would be in a position to express their opinion, as the direct representatives of the men affected. This might be done within a week or so.
The resolution tells us nothing, any more than that it is the intention of the minister to bring in a resolution designed to relate to the special force, and other forces, which may include the European brigade. The best way of getting information from the Legion is to allow this resolution to pass so that we can get the bill. I should like to facilitate the passage of this resolution so that we can get down to business.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Lapointe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 287, to make certain rights, privileges and benefits applicable to persons serving in that part of the armed forces of Canada designated as the special force and to certain other members of the Canadian forces.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PENSION ACT


Hugues Lapointe: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Pension Act to make more adequate provision for children whose mothers are pensioned . as widows; to increase the payment in respect of burial grants; to advance the marriage date line for world war I pensioners and to eliminate the said date line in certain cases; to provide also for the removal of the means test where the children of a pensioner are continuing their education beyond the statutory age limit; and to provide further for the salaries of the pension commissioners and for certain other administrative purposes with a view to enlarging the scope of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, in introducing this resolution I shall confine my remarks to the general features of the legislation which is to follow, as I believe a more detailed examination could more profitably

be made by members of the committee. As hon. members are aware, representations are made from time to time to the department and the government by the organized veteran bodies asking that changes be made in the Pension Act to make it more equitable and workable in view of changed circumstances. The officers of the department and the pension commission with their long experience in handling veterans legislation have recommended that certain changes be made.
We have come to the conclusion that the children of pensioned widows should be provided for more adequately and it is proposed to increase the allowances paid to such children. Similarly, we intend to extend the educational facilities available to children of men who have died or been disabled in the service of their country. At the present time the pension paid to a child stops at the age of sixteen years in the case of a boy and seventeen years in the case of a girl. There are provisions at the present time to permit this award to be continued to the age of 21 years provided the child is making satisfactory educational progress and that those responsible for his maintenance are without adequate resources. In order to encourage the pursuit of higher education the government proposes to remove what might be referred to as the means test with regard to adequate resources and the pension will be paid to the age of 21 years to all children of pensioned widows and disability pensioners as well as to orphans. The only requirement is that they must be satisfactorily pursuing an approved course of education.
The other amendments will be to extend the dateline for the marriage of world war I veterans to May 1, 1950, and to provide for the cost of the last illness and burial, increasing the amount already payable under the act, and providing also for the erection of standard headstones where needed.


Percy Ellis Wright: I should like to say a few
words despite the fact the hon. member for Cape Breton South seems to be so anxious to get this to the committee. Unfortunately this year a number of hon. members are not on the special committee because its numbers have been reduced from other years.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Would the hon. member permit the suggestion that there will be full opportunity for debate on the second reading? If we can get the resolution passed and the bill introduced, it could be distributed.


Percy Ellis Wright: I suggest that the changes
proposed in the Pension Act introduce certain new principles. The minister has stated that there will be an extension of certain rights already provided by the act
Pension Act
and I commend the department and the minister for that. I offer special commendation for the extension of the educational facilities to children of veterans. When I was a member of the committee I urged that greater provision in the way of education be made for the children of veterans. Then it is also proposed to change the act to provide that special grants with respect to unemployable veterans-


Hugues Lapointe: I wonder if the hon, member will allow me to interrupt? The supplements to which he refers are not paid under the authority of the Pension Act. They are being paid under the authority of the Department of Veterans Affairs Act. I believe it is section 6 (g) of the act which authorizes the payment of this supplement. It is being done through the supplementary estimate which is now before the committee, and the administration of the Pension Act has nothing to do with that.


Percy Ellis Wright: I realize that. I realize it is
one of the methods being used to avoid introducing a new principle into the Pension Act. Nevertheless it does introduce a new principle with reference to veterans legislation. I have a copy of the May issue of The Legionary here and I should like to refer to what is stated by Mr. T. D. Anderson, secretary of the Canadian Legion.


Hugues Lapointe: What number is that?


Percy Ellis Wright: May, No. 12. He is dealing with the statement by the minister when he was referring the matter to the veterans affairs committee. Mr. Anderson says:
With reference to this statement by the minister we would point out that, regardless of whether the special allowance is paid under authority of the Pension Act or the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, it would appear that the pensioner in order to become eligible for the special allowance will be required to establish need. If such is in fact the case, then the pensioners will certainly look upon this requirement as a means test. Up to this time Canadian war disability pensions have always been based on the degree of disability suffered without regard to other income or financial need. The Canadian Legion has strongly opposed the introduction of a means test in any form.
It is not my opinion that I am giving. It is the opinion of the Legion, and I think they should be in a position to judge this matter.


Hugues Lapointe: At the time the article was written the item mentioned had not been placed before members of the committee. I think that anyone who has followed the statements made and the explanations given in the veterans affairs committee after the introduction of this item will realize that speculation did not turn out to be absolutely correct.

Pension Act


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, is it in order to permit a discussion of legislation that is before the veterans affairs committee at the present time? If you do, then there are many other members of the committee who will have something to say about it. I am on the committee. We have been discussing this matter for two meetings. I can tell the hon. member for Melfort that whoever wrote that article and has summed it up as introducing a means test is completely in error.


Howard Charles Green: Not so far.


Clarence Gillis: He is completely in error.


Percy Ellis Wright: It is the general secretary of the Canadian Legion.


Clarence Gillis: I do not care who wrote it. I have been present at two meetings of the committee where this matter has been studied in detail, and I have been dealing with pension matters for a longer time than the general secretary of the Canadian Legion. I do not want to get into any discussion because in the committee we have postponed any decision, and the amendment we are trying to make to this particular legislation, to give the Legion a chance to come and give us the benefit of their opinion. I do not want to gum it up at this time by a two minute discussion. If hon. members are anxious to get this legislation through, if they agree with all the good features in it, then let us pass these bills so that they can be sent to the committee, put in final shape, brought back into the house and passed so that we may start to pay the benefits.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The point of order raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton South is very well taken. I did not understand that what the hon. member for Melfort was referring to was legislation which is now being discussed by a committee and which has not been reported to the house. The hon. member should not refer to it.


James Arthur Ross: I should like to ask the minister what is proposed in the matter of further salaries for the commissioners. Is there any suggestion to appoint new commissioners, or is it an increase in salary for those who are there?


Hugues Lapointe: I do not think I am permitted to give the details of the bill at this stage. Actually what is proposed, and what is referred to in the resolution, is to put into the statute the actual salaries paid to the commissioners. These salaries were increased last year or two years ago, but it was done through an estimate and not by way of amendment to the Pension Act. As we are now opening up the act we want to put into it the actual salaries they are being paid.


James Arthur Ross: To the present commissioners?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Lapointe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 288, to amend the Pension Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will take up first the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 188, an act to amend the Yukon Act. They have added two words to the bill as passed by this house. We had said "by permission of the commissioner" and the Senate has amended it to read "by permission of the commissioner in council". We will ask concurrence in this amendment. The government is satisfied with it. Then we will take up second reading of Bill No. 285, an act to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, 1932. I understand it will be referred to the banking and commerce committee. Then we will take up the two resolutions in the name of the Prime Minister concerning Laurier house and Kingsmere park; the resolution in the name of the Minister of Labour concerning the Government Employees Compensation Act. Then we will revert to these three veterans measures, Bills No. 286, 287 and 288. These are the bills based on these three resolutions. If time is left we will start the study in committee of Bill No. 79, an act respecting Indians.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 15, 1951